Loading...

Mr.Ranjan Sharma vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 13 December, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Ranjan Sharma vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 13 December, 2010
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building (Near Post Office)
                  Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                         Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                      Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003273/10406
                                              Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003273
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Sharma,
82 Arsh Complex,
Alfa-1, Greater Noida,
Dist.-Gautam Budhha Nagar,
U.P.

Respondent : Public Information Officer/DDE(S),
Directorate of Education,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Room No. 2, Ground Floor,
C-Block, Defence Colony,
New Delhi

RTI application filed on : 07/09/2010
PIO replied : 05/10/2010
First appeal filed on : 27/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 03/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 22/11/2010

Information Sought:

The appellant sought information regarding the
Sr. Information Sought Reply of PIO
No.

1. To provide with a Certified Copy of The said complaint was received by
progress report of the enclosed DDE on 03/08/2010 and in Zone 23 on
complaint. Also provide with the details 07/08/2010. The proceedings are still in
of such complaint as to which officer it progress.
was sent to, the time-period the
complaint was with the officer, the
action taken by the officer till date.

2. Specify whether the enquiry on the The enquiry of the complaint is still in
enclosed complaint is completed. process.

3. Specify if the enquiry is completed in Not applicable in the view of above.

above-mentioned complaint, then the
action taken against the erring Officials.

4. Specify the name/names of the persons Not applicable in the view of above.

Page 1 of 3

found responsible for the mentioned
complaint.

5. Specify the time required to complete The questions related to future are not
the enquiry if it has not been finished. covered under RTI Act.

First Appeal:

Incomplete and incorrect information provided by PIO.

Order of the FAA:

“The Appellant is present. P10/DDE (South) is also present. The appellant vide his 1st
Appeal dated 11.10.2010 has complained that he has not received any information from
PIO/DDE(South) in response to his RTI application dated 07.09.2010 submitted in the
office of PIO/DDE(South) on 08/09/2010.
P10/DDE (South) informed that information has already been provided to the appellant
on 05/10/2010 but the appellant said he has yet not received any information from
DDE/PIO(South) till date. P10/DDE (South) provided the information on the spot and
appellant accepted having received the information and also accepted to be satisfactory
except S.No. 01.

PI0/DDE (South) is directed to -provide the correct and complete information as required
by the-appellant-in-his-above RTI application for point no.01 within 07 days free of
cost.”

Ground of the Second Appeal:

No information provided by PIO after the order of the FAA and directions of FAA are
not followed.

Decision:

The appellant states that no information was provided to him by the PIO as
per the order of the FAA. The FAA had clearly ordered that correct and
complete information was to be provided by the PIO on point 1.
The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the correct and complete action taken on the
complaint in the following format to the appellant before 30 December
2010:

Action taken
Date on which Name and designation Action Date on which forwarded
Complaint of taken to
received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.

*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.

Page 2 of 3

From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing
complete information 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 showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is
directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be
levied on him.

He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed
on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 5 January, 2011. He will also send the
information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt
as proof of having sent 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 December 2010

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)

Page 3 of 3

Leave a Comment

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

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information