CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000907/7874
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000907
Appellant : Mr. Ram Dutt Sharma
A-2/57 Birjpuri,
Gokulpuri, Delhi-110094
Respondent : Mr. Marcel Ekka
Public Information Officer & ADE(Act)
O/o the Addl. Director of Education(ACT)
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054
RTI application filed on : 24/09/2009
PIO replied : 04/11/2009
First Appeal filed on : 20/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 11/12/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 09/04/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought photocopy of what action had been taken on his following letters submitted on
i. 03/09/2007
ii. 07/08/2009,
iii. 07/09/2009, 07/09/2009, 14/09/2009 and 15/09/2009.
PIO's Reply:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response. Information sought by the Appellant was not provided saying that its office had
not received said letter.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Noncompliance of FAA's order.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Ram Dutt Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Marcel Ekka, PIO & ADE(Act);
The Appellant had filed RTI application on 24/09/2009 by delivering it personally in R&I Branch
of Directorate of Education. The first response to this was given on 04/11/2009 stating that only three
letters have been received. Even for these three letters the action taken on the letters was not provided.
The FAA has given an order on 16/02/2010 stating, “in view of the facts mentioned above it is seen that
no proper reply was given by the PIO. However, it is revealed that the PIO has sent the letters to
RD(East/DD North East). RD(East/DD North East) is hereby directed to give the information as asked in
his letters immediately with intimation to this office,” The Appellant has received nothing after this. The
Commission is giving photocopies of the six letters of the appellant on which there is a rubber stamp and
date of receipt of R&I Branch of Directorate of Education. This is being given to the PIO with a direction
that he will obtain the status of the action taken on all the letters and inform the appellant
It is apparent that the department’s completely inefficient working has resulted in no proper information
has been given to the Appellant within time. The Commission realizes that the appellant has been put to
unnecessary harassment because of the inefficiency of the department. In view of this the Commission
decides to compensate the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered in filing and pursuing the RTI
application to first appeal and subsequent second appeal. The Commission awards the compensation of
Rs. 1000/- to the appellant and directs the PIO to ensure that the cheque for compensation of Rs.1000/- is
sent to the Appellant before 20 June 2010.
The Commission holds the PIO and PIO RD(East/DD North East) responsible for the delay in providing
the information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to obtain the status of the action taken on all the six
letters and inform the appellant before 10 June 2010.
He will also ensure that a cheque of Rs.1000/- is sent to the Appellant before
20 June 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
and PIO RD(East/DD North East) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO and PIO RD(East/DD North East) are
guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not
replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on them.
PIO and PIO RD(East/DD North East) will present themselves before the Commission at the above
address on 16 June 2010 at 02.30PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
26 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
CC:
To,
PIO RD(East/DD North East)through Mr. Marcel Ekka, PIO & ADE(Act);