CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel : + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/C/2008/00555/SG/1079
Complaint No. CIC/OK/C/2008/00555/SG
Complainant : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh
PUCL, Ballia Unit C/O Saraswati Interprizes
Shop No.3 Kharauni Kothi City
Ballia-277001
Respondent : Mr. J. Ram/ Public Information Officer,
Administrative Officer
K.V.S (Regional Office)
Kankarbagh P.O Lohia Nagar, Patna-800020
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh had filed a RTI application with the PIO, Administrative
OfficerK.V.S (Regional Office), Kankarbagh P.O Lohia Nagar, Patna, New Delhi on
29/01/2008 asking for certain information. Since no reply was received within the mandated
time of 30 days, he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission.
The Commission issued a notice to the PIO asking him to supply the information and
sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The PIO has informed the Commission vide his letter dated 05/01/2009 that as the applicant
had send the IPO to the wrong authority, he was requested vide a letter dated 05/02/2008 to
send the IPO drawn in favour of the correct authority i.e. “Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Office, Patna.” Instead of complying with the request of the PIO, the applicant filed
an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 19/02/2008. The Appellate Authority disposed off
the appeal on 28/02/2008 with a request to the applicant to send the postal order drawn in
favour of KVS, Regional Office, Patna, so that the desired information can be provided to him.
Once again instead of complying with the instruction of the Appellate Authority the applicant
filed a second appeal before the Commission. The PIO has further informed the Commission
that inspite of repeated non-compliance of the requests of the PIO & the Appellate Authority
by the applicant, the required information was being provided to the applicant in due adherence
of the instruction of the Central Information Commission.
Decision:
Complaint Disposed Off.
In consideration of the above information as has been provided to the Commission, it is of the
view that the required information has been provided to the applicant by the PIO. Hence, the
PIO is discharged of his obligation. Accordingly, the complaint is disposed off.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
January 14, 2009