CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000001/6376
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000001
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Chandan C.K. C/O
Badan Singh Yadav
Plot no. 63 & 64, Pocket-2
Block-H, Sec.-16
Rohini, Delhi-85
Respondent : 1. Ms. Tejinder Kaur
PIO & Librarian
Pt. Deendayal Uppadhyay Institute
For Physically Handicapped
4-Vishnu Digambar Marg
New Delhi-110002
2. Mr. Jay Chanda
PIO & Assistant Registrar
University of Delhi,
Main Campus, Delhi- 110007
Application filed on : 13/10/2009 (2 RTI applications)
PIO replied : 16/10/2009, 26/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 16/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 24/12/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 01/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 13/01/2010
Information sought:
The Appellant sought the following queries from PIO as mentioned respondent no. 1 above:
1. Why results of students having Roll no. 909905 (Chandan Kumar Chandan), 909913 (Priyanka Sarpal),
and 909915 (Ruchika Yadav) has been withheld by the Uni. of Delhi vide letter no. S.
NO/NOT/SDC/2009/313 of Hon’ble office of Dy. Controller of examinations. Provide the copy of all
the documents and file noting in this regard.
2. Provide a copy of the notification dated 18/098/2009 as mentioned by Sh. B. Raja Rajan, Dy. Controller
of the Examination, in the first sentence of his notice (S. no./NOT/SDC/2009/313).
3. Who has recommended that the result of internship of the three students should be withheld?
4. Provide the certified copy of the document on the basis of which Mr. Kamal N. Arya (Hostel warden)
wrote in his notice put on the hostel notice board dated 8th Oct. 2009 that the result of the Appellant has
been declared and the Appellant is required to vacate the hostel.
The Appellant asked the same queries as 1 & 2 along with following query no. 3 from PIO, Uni. of Delhi:
3. Under whose direction the Hon’ble Dy. Controller of Examination has withheld the result of Appellants?
The appellant claimed that the RTI concerned a matter of life and liberty, hence information must be provided
within 48 hours
PIO’s reply:
The PIO, University of Delhi referred as Respondent no. 2 transferred the RTI application to the PIO mentioned
as Respondent no. 1 on the ground that the information sought was pertaining to the latter PIO, referred as
Respondent no. 1.
The PIO, PDDUIPH, Respondent no. 1 replied dated 16/10/2009 that the Appellant was advised to confirm the
clause of Life & Liberty under RTI Act and how this clause was applicable to the matter as requested by the
Appellant.
The PIO, PDDUIPH, Respondent no. 1, further replied that the marks and attendance of Sh. Chandan Kr.
Chandan, Ms. Ruchira Yadav and Ms. Priyanka Sarpal have not yet been received from their supervisors.
Moreover an impartial inquiry had been set up under Proctor, University of Delhi and the result of the applicant
has not been declared pending decision of the inquiry. Now the last hearing has been fixed for 18th Dec. 2009 at
2 pm and the Appellant is requested to attend the meeting without fail, failing which Ex-parte decision will be
taken.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory reply from PIO
Order of the FAA:
No mentioned.
Ground for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by PIO
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Chandan C.K.;
Respondent: Ms. Tejinder Kaur , PIO & Librarian (PDUIPH);
Mr. Jay Chanda, PIO & Assistant Registrar (DU);
The Appellant has filed one RTI Application with the PIO of Delhi University and one with the PIO of
PDUIPH of on 13/10/2009. The PIO of Delhi University has provided the replies within the stipulated time. The
PIO of PDUIPH has sent information only on 04/12/2009 which is also no complete. The PIO has also not given
the information point-wise. The PIO was asked for reasons for not giving the complete information and for
giving the information very late. The PIO is able to offer no rational explanation for this.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Ms. Tejinder Kaur PIO of PDUIPH is directed to provide the complete point-wise information to the
Appellant before 25 January 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO Ms. Tejinder Kaur 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
show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause
why penalty should not be levied on her.
Ms. Tejinder Kaur will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 09 February 2010 at
12.30pm alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as
mandated under Section 20 (1). She will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
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
13 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(VA)