CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/00865/SG/0331
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00865/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.V.K.Agarwal,
259 Teacher’s Colony,
Bagh Guddar, Bareilly-243003.
Respondent 1 : PIO,
Kendriya Vidyalaya,
Ranikhet-263645.
RTI filed on : 27/10/2007
PIO replied : No reply.
First appeal filed on : 21/12/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 01/01/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 12/06/2008
Information Reply:
The Appellate had filed an appeal about the attested photocopies of attendance of employees working
in Kedriya Vidyalaya, Ranikhet.
The information required as follows:
a. Attested photocopies of the Attendance Register of the employees working in Kedriya
Vidyalaya, Ranikhet.
b. Attested photocopies of the Diary Register of KV from 1st Sep 1991 to 31st Oct 1991.
c. Attested photocopies of the Dispatch Register for the Oct 1993 to May 1994.
d. Attested photocopies of pay bill from Oct 1991 to Feb 1997.
The PIO Replied:
No Reply.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The FAA ordered on 01-01-08 ref No F.100-1(PIC)/MK/2007-KVS (DDR)
“You are requested to furnish the required information completely to the Applicant
immediately under intimation to this office. You will be fully responsible to pay @Rs.250/- per
day as per RTI Act, 05.”
Yet information was not provided to the appellant, hence he filed the First appeal.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 20 December, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying information by the PIO within 30
days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
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. 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 to present himself before the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him. He will present himself
before the Commission at the above address on 30 December, 2008 at 4.30 pm alongwith his
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). If the PIO wishes to contend that some other officer / officers are
responsible for the delay since he has sought their assistance under Section5(4) he will fill in
the time line in the attached format and ask such other officer / officers to be present with
their explanations.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
27 November, 2008