CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067.
Tel : + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000442/3817Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000442
Complainant : Mr. Sanjay Sharma
41/01, Street No. 01
Durga Puri Extn
Delhi-110093
Respondent : The Public Information Officer
Deputy Directorate of Education (North East)
RTI Cell
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Sanjay Sharma had filed a RTI application with the PIO at the Directorate of Education,
GNCT of Delhi on 24/02/2009 asking for certain information. Since no reply was received within the
mandated time of 30 days, he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission. The
Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 13/05/2009 asking him to supply the information and sought
an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission neither received a copy of the information sent to the complainant, nor did it
receive any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the complainant. Therefore,
the only presumption that could be made is that the PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable
cause refused to give information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. His failure to respond to the
Commission’s notice shows that he has no reasons for the refusal of information.
The Complaint was allowed.
The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information free of cost to the Appellant before 15
July, 2009 by its decision of 23 June 2009.
The issue before the Commission was 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 appeared that the PIO was 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 appeared that the PIO’s actions attracted the penal
provisions of Section 20 (1) and Section 2 (2).
He was directed to present himself with the written explanation to show cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) on 30 July, 2009 at 05:30 pm. He was also asked
to submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
A hearing was held on 24/08/2009 and the following were present:
Respondent: Mr. RP Yadava, PIO, DDE (NE); Mr. MK Malhotra, Nodal Officer
The Respondents state that they have not been able to supply the information, since the department
does not have the information.
Decision:
The Respondents admit that the audited balance sheets of all schools and the fee structure have to be
submitted to the Department as per Delhi School Education Act 1973 and Rules – Rule 180. These
have to be submitted to the Department by all schools by 31 July 2009 of each year. However, they
admit that the Department has not bothered to take these in the last many years. It is apparent that the
regulatory role which they are supposed to fulfill is not being fulfilled by them. The PIO is directed to
obtain these from the said school or take punitive action as per provisions of the DSEAR 1973.
The PIO will send the information to the Complainant and the Commission before 30 September 2009.
If they are unable to get the information, they will send a certificate to the Complainant and the
Commission evidencing that they have taken punitive action as per DSEAR. The PIO is also directed
to ensure that the details of which schools have submitted the returns as per the Act are put up on the
website under their obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This must be done before 30
September 2009.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 August 2009.
For any further communication with the Commission please mention the decision No. given at the top.