Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Mr. Raj Kumar vs National Institute Of Open … on 28 January, 2010
                    Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                              Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002940/6588
                                                          Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002940

Appellant                                  :       Mr. Raj Kumar,
                                                   H.No. A-018, Rajeev Nagar Ext.,
                                                   Barwala Road, Begum Pur,
                                                   Near Nirman Public School,

Respondent                                 :       Public Information Officer
                                                   National Institute of Open Learning,
                                                   A-24-25, Institutional Area,
                                                   NH-24, Sector-62,
                                                   Distt-Gautam Buddha Nagar,
                                                   Noida-201309, U.P

RTI application filed on                   :       01/07/2009
PIO replied                                :       03/08/2009
First Appeal filed on                      :       19/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order            :       Not mentioned.
Second Appeal Received on                  :       13/11/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on                  :       26/12/2009
Hearing Held on                            :       28/01/2010

Information sought:
Appellant sought information about examination of NIOS held on 08/04/2009 for class 12th in
which Appellant's daughter appeared. In this regard Appellant sought following information:
   1.     Whether invigilator submits his report and Answer sheet in the office. Photocopy of
          report submitted by the invigilator of the examination room in which Appellant's
          daughter (Roll no. 27030283525) appeared on 08/04/2009.
   2.     Appellant wanted to know to where Answer Sheet of English paper in which his
          daughter appeared on 08/04/2009 at Sarvoday Vidalaya, Ghongha Mor, Sannoth, had
          been sent.
   3.     Photocopy of Attendance sheet of examination said above. Inform total no. of
          students present and no. of students who were not present in examination said above.
   4.     Name and Address of First Appellate Authority.

PIO's Reply:
Point no. 1 -3: Appellant was informed by the PIO, NIOS that his RTI Application had been sent
to Regional Director, Regional Office, National Institute of Open Learning, A-31, Institutional
Area, Sector-62, Noida, and Appellant was informed by the PIO after receiving information.
Point no. 4: Address of FAA was informed to the Appellant.

Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not provided.
 Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Appellant was called by the FAA on 17/09/2009. Appellant mentioned that requested information
was not provided.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information not provided

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar;

Respondent: Absent;

The First Appellate Authority is guilty of dereliction of duty since he had not passed any
order in the matter.

The PIO Ms. Anitha Nair has sent a letter to the Commission claiming that the grievance
of the Appellant has been resolved. The appellant states that no information as sought by him has
been provided so far. The PIO’s letter also does not appear to give any evidence of the
information having been provided to the Appellant.


The appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant before
15 February 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 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.

She will give her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before October, 2009. She will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.

She will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 08 March 2010 at
11.30am 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. 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
28 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.146 seconds.