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/2008/01066/SG/0766
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/01066/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. V.K. Agarwal,
WZ-75, Ground Floor,
Gali No.4, Shiv Nagar,
New Delhi.
Respondent 1 : Public Information Officer,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghtan,
Delhi Region, JNU Campus,
New Mehrauli, New Delhi-110067
RTI filed on : 03/01/2008
PIO transferred the RTI application
to the PIO, KVS (HQ) for query no. 2
and to the Principal & APIO, KV, 08/01/2008
INA Colony/Andrews Ganj/Sec.8
R.K. Puram /Gole Market
/No. 1 &2 Delhi Cantt for query no. 5
PIO replied : 3/01/2008
First appeal filed on : 08/01/2008 and 23/1/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 22/04/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 06/07/2008
Information Sought and Reply if Any
The following table gives details of the information sought by the appellant and the PIO’s
reply to the same.
Information Sought PIO’s Reply (23/01/2008)
• Provide the basis of rules with respect A new file is opened to
to method, manner and procedures for process a new FR. Movement
the constitution of new files, of file:
documents etc. and their movements Dealing hand—Section-in-
from one table to another in the office Charge—-Adminst.Officer—
and from one section to another. –A.C.
• A copy of the aforesaid rules
Transfer to the other section
if required is done by the
competent authority.
• Copy of rules and circulars providing • No such statement is
for life of documents, files, records on record
etc. in K.V.S
• Copies of action taken report • No case of breach of
mentioning the name of the officials, rules on record
who are in breach of rules for
weeding out the documents in KVS • With respect to
(HQ), KVS (Regional Offices) and weeding out of files
KV’s KVS follows GOI
• Requisite indexing of documents rules mutaes-mutands
created and later weeded out in KVS for which GOI office
Regional Office, Delhi between 1998- manual may be
2007 with respect to matters referred.
pertaining to Central Administrative
Tribunal and Court Cases.
• Details of number of sections class Applicant requested to either
wise sanctioned in all KVs of Delhi collect information directly
Region for the period between 1997- from all 58 KVs or send an
98 to 2002-03 amount of Rs. 200 for
• Year wise details of WET's of KV's photocopying the required
of Delhi Region documents
• Question no. 5 not legible at all in the Transferred to the concerned
RTI application APIOs on 08/01/2008
First Appeal
The appellant filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 24/03/2008
alleging wilful and malafide non supply of information including that of copy of GOI manual
on the subject of weeding out of files, documents etc. The appellate authority by its order
dated 22/04/2008 held:
(i) That the information as supplied to the appellant is correct and complete.
(ii) That with respect to question no. 5, Principals of KVs of Delhi Cantt, INA and
Gole Market are being asked to supply the information if not provided and also
asked the appellant to collect information from them.
(iii) that there was no need to provide information with respect to question no 2 by
PIO, KVS (HQ) as the same had been provided by the PIO, KVS (RO) on
23/01/2008
(iv) That a fee of Rs. 200 was correctly charged and the same was not excessive.
Pleadings before the Commission
Aggrieved by the information provided by the PIOs and the order of the First Appellate
Authority, the appellant has come before the Commission in the second appeal. The appellant
has alleged violation of Section 7 read with Section 20 of the RTI Act on the part of the PIOs
and has further alleged that the First Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal on merits
and also erred in deciding the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit.
Relevant Facts Emerging During Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. V.K. Agarwal
Respondent: Mr.G.R.Dua PIO
The appellant’s last question seeking information is illegible, which the appellant also agrees.
The appellant however contends that the Commission should have informed him about this.
The appellant had asked for a number of questions, and extensive answers have been
supplied. However the appellant continues to say he is dissatisfied. The Commission asked
him if he can identify the exact information he seeks, which the Commission will direct the
respondent to give. The appellant does not appear to be keen on getting any information, but
only seems keen to have the PIO penalized.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29th December, 2008.
(For any further correspondence please mention the decision No)