CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002006/5059
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002006
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R. K. Rai
Type-III Qtr. No. 12,
Kendriya Vidyalya No. 1,
Delhi Cantt, Delhi-110010.
Respondent : Mr. Somti Srivastava
APIO
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Bhagat Sigh
Marg, New Delhi-110602.
RTI application filed on : 30/03/2009
PIO replied : 20/04/2009
First appeal filed on : 27/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 01/07/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 20/08/2009
Sr. Information sought PIO's reply
1. Provide an access to inspect the documents The Inquiry report of Complaint
enclosed in File No. 6-14/KVS (Vig) dated/year Redressal Committee and
2006 and also allow an access to get certified true preliminary inquiry report of Smt.
copy of all documents enclosed in the said file. V.L.Chari, Principal are enclosed.
2. Certified true copy of alleged recorded statements The documents called for cannot be
of alleged Km. Preeti which was allegedly provided under Section 8 (e) and (k).
recorded during summary inquiry.
Grounds for First Appeal:
• A request under RTI Act-2005 can only be refused under Rule 8 and Rule 9 of RTI Act,
2005 wherein the CPIO never mentioned the use of any clause of Section 8 and Section 9
of RTI Act, 2005.
• Information not provided within 30 days.
The First Appellate Authority order:
“The position is quite clear that the statements of girls cannot be given under Section 8 (1) (e) &
(g) of RTI Act, 2005. He was provided with the documents as sought vide his application dated
30/03/2009 but the statements of girl students were not supplied to him keeping in view the
larger public interest under Section 8 (1) (e) 7 (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is in accordance
with the spirit of the laid down provisions.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant had filed the Appeal against the CPIO and FAA for denial to provide 73 Page
documents in spite of the fact that they received a sum of Rs. 146/- for supply of documents.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. R. K. Rai
Respondent: Mr. Somti Srivastava, APIO
The PIO states that the Appellant had sought copies of statements recorded by students against
the Appellant in a case of moral turpitude. The PIO feels that disclosing these statement would
endanger their safety and hence claims exemption under Section 8(1)(g). The Commission
accepts this and directs the PIO to severe the statements of the students as per Section 10 of the
RTI Act and give the photocopy of the balance file to the Appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to severe the statements of the students and give the photocopy of the
balance file to the Appellant before 25 October 2009.
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
7 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AK)