CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003370/10608
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003370
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Ambavat,
S/o Late Sh. Jagbir Singh,
R/o 472/1-A, Bhagat Singh Road,
Kishan Ganj,
Delhi
Respondent : Public Information Officer (HQ),
Directorate of Education,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
RTI Cell, (Room No. 220),
Old Secretariat, Parliament Street,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 03/09/2010
PIO replied : 28/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 06/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 03/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 30/11/2010
Information Sought:
The appellant sought information regarding the number of first appeals given appeal no. 1 to
1100 filed before Ms. Shashi Kaushal, Addn. Directorate of Education. Also mention the First
Appellate Authority Dte. of education, Old Secretariat, Room No. 17, Delhi 110054 were (I)
dismissed/ rejected, (2) allowed and (3) pending.
Reply of PIO:
No information received from PIO.
First Appeal:
No information furnished by PIO.
Order of the FAA:
FAA ordered, ” I am of the view that the reply has already been given by the PlO (Hq).
However, P10 (Hq.) is directed to give the complete reply to the appellant within 15 days.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information given by PIO.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no information
has been provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate
Authority to the appellant before 10 January 2011.
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 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 15 January, 2010. 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.
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
23 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)