Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Arif Aqeel vs Department Of School Education … on 5 April, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Arif Aqeel vs Department Of School Education … on 5 April, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000934/11850
                                                                 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000934

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Arif Aqeel
54, Laxmi Talkies Road,
Jumerati, Bhopal 462001

Respondent : Mr. M. L. Bhatia
Public Information Officer & Under Secretary
Department of School Education and Literacy
Adult Education Bureau Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi 110001

RTI application filed on : 11/01/2010
PIO replied : 25/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 02/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.

Second Appeal received on            :       08/04/2010
Notice of hearing sent on            :       07/03/2011
Hearing held on                      :

The Appellant had sought following information with the respect to “Jan Shikhan Sansthan” run by
Government of Bhopal:

Sl. Information Sought

1. Copy of the Rules for Sansthan.

Copy of the project submitted by Sansthan.

3. List of managing committee members.

4. Copy of the approval order and copies of order issued in respect of payments.

5. Copy of cash book and expenditure occurred by the Sansthan.

6. Copy of salary bills since beginning.

7. Details of programs organized by the sansthan and expenditure occurred in organizing such
programs.

8. List of students took training from the sansthan and names of trade in which training was done.

Reply of the PIO:

‘I am to say that your RTI application dated 11.1.2010 received in the this Department on 5.3.2010
seeking information regarding Jan Shikshan Sansthan, Bhopal (2) has been considered in this
Department. As per point Nos,3 to 9 of your application, you have sought for information pertaining to
Jan Sikshan Sansthan, Bhopal (2). Accordingly, a copy of your RTI application dated 11.12010 has
been forwarded to Director, JSS, Bhopal(2), Claim Court Building, Bhopal with the direction to send
the requisite information to you directly within the stipulated period. As far as information on point
Nos, 1 and 2 are concerned, the requisite information consists a total of 208 pages. You are, therefore,
requested to send a demand draft of Rs.4 16/- as photocopy fees of the requisite information. The
demand draft may be sent in the name of Accounts Officer, Pay & Accounts Office, Department of
School Education & Literacy, New Delhi.”

First Appeal:

The PIO has not provided information even after lapse of mandated period of 30 days.

Order of the FAA:

Not mentioned.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided complete information. Moreover the First Appellate Authority has also not
looked at it.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant : Absent;

Respondent : Mr. M. L. Bhatia, Public Information Officer & Under Secretary; Mr. Neeraj
Richhariya, Director-in-charge and Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Accountant JSS, Bhopal-2;
The Respondent states that the RTI application dated 11/01/2010 was received in the Central
Registry on 05/03/2010 at New Delhi. The PIO transferred part of the application to PIO, JSS at
Bhopal. He also told the appellant on the same day that the information regarding query-2 consisted of
208 pages for which the Appellant must give the additional fee of Rs.416/-.

PIO Bhopal shows that on 26/03/2010 he sent a letter to the Appellant informing him that the
information consisted of 1072 pages for which Rs.2144/- was to be paid as additional fee. The
appellant has sent a UPC receipt on 11/01/2010 from which the Commission is not able to come to a
definite conclusion on whether this was related to this RTI application been sent to the PIO, since there
is no name and address. The Commission has also been consistently holding that a speed post receipt
would be considered as a proper proof. In view of this the Commission accepts that the two PIOs have
sent their demands for additional fees within 30 days since they claims that there central registry
received the RTI application only on 05/03/2010.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The Appellant can get the information if he pays the additional fees as demanded
by the PIOs.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
05 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)