CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001541/8630Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001541
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Md. Tabrez Alam
Plot no 216, Rajpur ext
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-68
Respondent : Mrs. Kunti Aswal,
Deemed PIO & Education Officer (Zone-24)
Directorate of Education Delhi,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
C- Block, Defense Colony,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 05/02/2010
PIO replied : No reply
First appeal filed on : 19/05/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : Not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 08/06/2010
Sl. Information Sought
1. I had filed for the admission of my son Arman with the caste certificate and other necessary details. But
my son was not given admission. I want the following information:
2. Kindly provide information regarding % of OBC & EWS Quota at FR Egnel School.
3. Kindly provide the list of students who have enrolled in the school with OBC & EWS Quota.
4. Under RTE do children have the right to get admission to any school?
5. Since the school is minority school
6. Kindly provide the recognition letter of the FR Egnel School Gautam Nagar.
7. Kindly provide the list regarding the number of applications from the minorities & how many applications
were accepted.
Ground of First Appeal:
Not enclosed
FAA Order:
Not enclosed
Ground for Second Appeal:
No information received form PIO & FAA.
Page 1 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 21/07/2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant : Md. Tabrez Alam;
Respondent : Ms. Anita Satia, Public Information Officer & DDE(S); Ms. Kunti Aswal, EO(Z-24);
“The RTI application has been made on 05/02/2010, no information was provided to the appellant and the
information has been provided to the appellant on 16/06/2010 which appears to be appropriate. The PIO states that
the RTI application had been made at the PIO Head Quarter on 05/02/2010. PIO (HQ) Mr. Anjum Masood
transferred the RTI application on 09/03/2010 to PIO(Act). PIO(Act) transferred to PIO(South) on 12/03/2010 which
reached PIO(South) on 16/03/2010. After this PIO (South) sought the assistance of Education Officer Zone-24 Mrs.
Kunti Aswal on 18/03/2010 and the information was received from the Education Officer on 15/06/2010.
Mr. Anjum Masood, PIO(HQ) has transferred the RTI application after considerable delay leading to the delay in
proving the information. Mrs. Kunti Aswal has not provided the information in time. Mrs. Kunti Aswal was asked to
explain the reasons for the delay. She claims that she tried to get the information from the School and did not have
the information. If information is not held by the public authority the appellant should have been informed
immediately.”
Decision dated 21/07/2010:
The appeal was allowed.
“The information has been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Mr. Anjum
Masood, PIO(HQ) and Mrs. Kunti Aswal deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts
before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO and deemed PIO are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should
not be levied on them.
Mr. Anjum Masood, PIO(HQ) and Mrs. Kunti Aswal deemed PIO will present themselves before the Commission at
the above address on 19 August 2010 at 03.00PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty
should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They 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.”
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 19/08/2010:
Appellant: Mr. Tabrez Alam;
Respondent: Mr. Anjum Masood, PIO (HQ); Mrs. Kunti Aswal, Deemed & EO, Zone-24;
The PIO (HQ) Mr. Anjum Masood has submitted that the RTI application dated 05/02/2010 was received in
his office on 08/02/2010. Since the postal order enclosed with was in the name of PIO, Directorate of Education, the
same was given to the deemed PIO & UDC Mr. S.P. Mann by the PIO Mr. Masood for sending it back to the
Appellant with the request to furnish a fresh postal order in the name of Account Officer, Directorate of Education.
However, Mr. S.P. Mann had sent the above said information to the Appellant only on 26/02/2010, resulting which
the Appellant personally approached the PIO on 05/03/2010 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.10/- in cash.
Further, the RTI application was transferred to the PIO(Act) on 09/03/2010.
The APIO & EO, Zone-24 Mrs. Kunti Aswal has stated that the RTI application was received in her office
through the PIO & DDE(South) on 19/03/2010. A reply was submitted by Mrs. Aswal to the PIO & DDE(South) on
07/04/2010. Since the said reply was incomplete and unsatisfactory, the PIO & DDE(South) had returned the same to
her and directing her to furnish the complete reply. The PIO & DDE(South) had also sent a letter dated 07/04/2010 to
the Appellant, stating that the information was awaited from the concerned EO. The APIO & EO, Zone-24 Mrs.
Page 2 of 4
Aswal has further stated that the information was not ready available with her and the same was to be collected from
the Fr. Agnel School. The reply was received from the concerned School only on 11/06/2010 and the same was
provided to the Appellant on 15/06/2010.
The Appellant has stated that the reply provided to him with respect to Query no. 3 is incomplete as the
number of students enrolled in the school with EWS Quota for the year 2010-11 should be 21 as per the table
provided. However, the information about the name, father’s name and address was provided only for 17 students.
Further, the Commission has observed that the information provided on 15/06/2010 by the concerned school was in
response of the letter dated 03/06/2010 from the APIO & EO, Zone-24. Hence, after 07/04/2010 the APIO & EO,
Zone-24 had forwarded the RTI application to the concerned School for providing the information only on
03/06/2010.
When the Commission asked the APIO Mrs. Kunti Aswal, the reasons for not forwarding the RTI application
to the concerned School immediately after 07/04/2010. Mrs. Aswal states that she must have forwarded the RTI
application immediately after 07/04/2010. However, Mrs. Aswal has not offered any proof of forwarding the same to
the concerned School.
The APIO is directed to provide the names of the students who have been admitted in pre-school under the
5% quota. The PIO will also get an explanation form the school why only 21 students have been admitted under EWS
Quota instead of 24. This information will be provided to the appellant before 10 September 2010.
The deemed PIO Mrs. Kunti Aswal received the RTI application according to her own admission on
19/03/2010 and she gave an incomplete reply on 07/04/2010 to the PIO. The PIO immediately informed her that the
reply was incomplete on the same day and Mrs. Aswal does not appear to have taken any action on this. From the
evidence produced before the Commission it appears that she sought the additional information from the school only
on 03/06/2010 and when she received it on 11/06/2010 she sent it to the PIO who has sent the information on
15/06/2010. Mrs. Kunti Aswal received the RTI application on 19/03/2010 and she should have been able to provide
the information latest by 15/04/2010. Instead the information was provided to the appellant only on 15/06/2010. It is
true that even this information is not complete and part of the information has still to be provided. Thus Mrs. Kunti
Aswal, Deemed PIO & Education Officer appears to be responsible for the delay of 60 days from 15/04/2010 to
15/06/2010. The Commission asked her to give reasons for this delay.
The deemed PIO Mrs. Kunti Aswal is able to offer no explanation for the delay. Section 20 (1) of the RTI
Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may
be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an
application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section
7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing
the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or
information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall
be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a
request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, who denied the request.
Page 3 of 4
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the
information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose
the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The
burden of proving that the PIO or deemed PIO acted reasonably and diligently is clearly on the PIO.
The Deemed PIO has been able no give no reasonable cause for the delay of 60 days. The Commission finds
this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Since the Commission has come to the
conclusion that there was an unwarranted delay of 60 days which can be ascribed to Mrs. Kunti Aswal. The
Commission imposes a penalty at the rate of Rs.250/- per day of delay i.e. Rs.250/- X 60 days = Rs.15000/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this
a fit case for levying penalty on Mrs. Kunti Aswal, Deemed & EO. Since the delay in
providing the correct information has been of 60 days, the Commission is passing an order
penalizing Mrs. Kunti Aswal Rs. 15,000/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.15,000/-
from the salary of Mrs. Kunti Aswal and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s
Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the
same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central
Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The
amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of
Mrs. Kunti Aswal and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from October 2010. The
total amount of Rs.15,000 /- will be remitted by 10th of December, 2010.
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
19 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ARG)
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
Page 4 of 4