In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001662
Date of Hearing : July 28, 2011
Date of Decision : July 28, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Umesh Bharti
R/o L207, Mangolpuri
Delhi - 110 083.
Applicant was present along with Shri Munna Lal, Shri Rajesh Kumar
Respondent(s)
Directorate of Education
O/o the District Edn. Officer
ZoneXII Distt
N.W (B) School Complex
Q Block, Mangolpuri
Delhi - 110083.
Represented by : Shri Lalit Mohan Pande, Education Oficer.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001662
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 24.2.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Directorate of Education,
ZoneXII, Mangolpuri, Delhi seeking information related to action taken on his complaint dated
19.2.11 besides information against 19 points all related to the complaint lodged with the Education
Officer. The PIO provided the information on 28..2.11. Not satisfied with this reply the Applicant filed
his first appeal. The Appellate Authority directed the Applicant to be present for a hearing on
29.3.11 and issued an order dated 4.4.11 wherein he stated that on perusal of the information
provided it was noted that all the available information has been provided to the Applicant by the PIO.
Not satisfied with this reply the Applicant filed a second appeal before the Commission dated Nil
which was registered in the Commission on 21.6.11.
Decision.
2. During the hearing the Applicant stated that he had on the same day i.e. on 19.2.11 filed an RTI
Application seeking the same information from the Principal of the said school and that he had noted
that there is a contradiction in replies of the Principal and of the Education Officer against points 2, 3,
4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19. He sought reasons for this contradiction. The Commission after
hearing the Applicant directs the PIO/Education Officer to confirm which information against the
above mentioned points is correct (his or the Principal’s) and if there is a contradiction in any of the
replies, reasons for the same and giving the correct information.
3. In the event some information has been provided wrong either by the Principal or by the Education
officer, the Commission directs the official who has provided the wrong information to showcause as
to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for seemingly willfully denying the information to
the Appellant.
4. The information to be provided to the Applicant by 30th August 2011 and the explanation to reach the
Commission by the same date.
3. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri Umesh Bharti
R/o L207, Mangolpuri
Delhi – 110 083.
2. The Public Information Officer
Directorate of Education
O/o the District Edn. Officer
ZoneXII Distt
N.W (B) School Complex
Q Block, Mangolpuri
Delhi – 110083.
3. The Appellate Authority
Directorate of Education
O/o the Regional Director of Edn (N)
C0ed. S V Building, F/U Block
Pitampura,
Delhi – 110034.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.
.
In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding
the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.