Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Anand Bhushan vs Directorate Of Education, Gnctd on 18 March, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr. Anand Bhushan vs Directorate Of Education, Gnctd on 18 March, 2010
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000292/7204
                                                          Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000292

Appellant                                   :      Mr. Anand Bhushan
                                                   Flat No. 223, Pkt. 4,
                                                   Sector A-9, Narela,
                                                   New Delhi 110040

Respondent                                  :      Mr. R. A. Haritash
                                                   The Dy. Director of Education & PIO
                                                   Directorate of Education, GNCTD
                                                   O/o the Dy. Director of Education (NW-A)
                                                   BL Block, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi

RTI application filed on                    :      30/10/2009
PIO replied                                 :      30/11/2009
First Appeal filed on                       :      07/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order             :      17/12/2009
Second Appeal Received on                   :      04/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on                   :      18/02/2010
Hearing Held on                             :      18/03/2010

 Sl.                    Information sought:                                PIO's reply:
 1.    The details of action taken by the Deptt. of Education    This information can be
       on my application (copy enclosed) may be furnished        collected from the Act Branch
       alongwith copies of relevant correspondence/note-         as mentioned in your enclosed
       sheets.                                                   application
 2.    What action the deptt. has proposed to be taken           As above
       against the school for having been charged the
       development charges Rs. 500/ to Rs. 750/ and Rs.
       1440/ in year 2007, 08, 09 respectively and tuition fee
       at more than 30% in the respective years'.
 3.    After the final verdict in the matter in the Hon'ble      Information regarding fee etc.
       High Court of Delhi recently, I may be furnished with     changes by the School is
       the full details of tuition fees and other charges an     enclosed herewith.
       unaided school can levy from the parents, as approved
       by you.

Grounds for First Appeal:
       Dissatisfied information received from PIO. "The RTI application has been dealt in a
very casual way you are requested to order the PIO to supply of accurate information asked by
me."
 Order of the First Appellate Authority:
       "The undersigned has examined the original application of the applicant. Information
provided by the PIO and grounds of the appeal. After careful examination of all the documents it
is found that the information provided by the PIO is satisfactory."

Grounds for Second Appeal:
     Dissatisfied information received from PIO & FAA.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Anand Bhushan;

Respondent: Mr. Dayanand, Assistant Director on behalf of Mr. R. A. Haritash, Dy. Director of
Education & PIO;

The PIO has not given the information sought by the Appellant and has only stated that
information is available with the Act Branch. The PIO should have either taken the assistance of
some body from the Act branch under Section 5(4) or should have transferred the RTI
application under 6(3) to the Act Branch. He has done neither of these.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before
30 March 2010.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO Mr. R. A. Haritash within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is 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 PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on him.

Mr. R. A. Haritash will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
14 April 2010 at 10.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He 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
18 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(k.j.)