CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/00863/SG/0273
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00863/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Balvir Bahadur,
UDC, Kendriya Vidyalaya No-1,
Banbasa Cantt., C/o KV CRPF,
Rampur.
Respondent : PIO,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Salawala, Hathibarkala,
Dehradun.
RTI filed on : 13/10/2007
PIO replied : No reply.
First appeal filed on : 03/11/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 14/02/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 12/06/2008
Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an appeal under RTI Act, 05 requesting that please provide a attested Photo-
copy of the Joining Report submitted to the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, CRPF, Rampur on 13-09-
04 by the Appellant.
The PIO Reply:
No Reply.
The Fist Appellate Authority Ordered:
The Appellate Authority asked the APIO to submit his comments on the issue. The APIO
reported that the envelop was received and returned as it was confirmed from the Principal,
KV Banbassa Cantt. That there is no UDC named Sh. Balvir Bahadur working at KV No1
Banbassa Cantt. And Care of KV Rampur.
“After going through the appeal dated 03-11-07, the information supplied by the APIO at the
time of hearing, the undersigned provided a copy of the application to the APIO with the
direction to provide the information with in a week’s time to the Appellant as per provision of
RTI Act, 05. He was also directed not to refuse such letters comes under RTI. Hence, the appeal
is disposed off.”
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be provided to the appellant by 10th December, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the information by the PIO within 30
days as required by the law.
It also appears that the PIO has also not obeyed the orders of the First Appellate Authority,
thereby willfully disobeying the requirements of the law and also defying the orders of his
senior officer.
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. He has further refused to obey the
orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information
may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be
given. .
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A show cause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to give written submissions to
the Commission showing cause why penalty should not be levied on him at the rate of Rs.250
per day of delay as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. If the PIO wishes to contend that some
other officer / officers are responsible for the delay, since he has sought their assistance under
Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the attached format and ask such other officer /
officers to also send their written submissions on why penalty should not be imposed on
them. He shall also send evidence of having furnished the information to the appellant. The
PIO’s written submissions must reach the Commission by 20 December, 2008.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 November, 08