CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002744/9989Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002744
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Farhan,
C/o Pardarshita,
F- 185, 186, New Seema Puri,
Delhi- 110095
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Deputy Director of Education (North East),
O/o Deputy Director of Education (North East)
Directorate of Education, GNCTD
RTI Cell, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi
RTI application filed on : 26/05/2010
PIO replied on : 19/06/2010
First Appeal filed on : 12/08/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 30/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 28/09/2010
Information Sought:
1. Amount collected in PTA Fund, Pupil Welfare Fund and VKS Fund by school or received from
planning the above approved fund.
2. Guidelines for utilizing PTA Fund, Pupil Welfare Fund and VKS Fund.
3. Time and date for inspection of details related to expenditure from the above mentioned funds.
4. How much of the above funds was utilized in the session 2009- 2010?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The Appellant was asked to deposit a fee of Rs. 38 to collect the copies of the information sought.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The Appellant deposited the prescribed fee of Rs. 38 on 30/06/2010. However, no reply was given by the
PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that despite having deposited the requisite fees, the information had not been provided.
The PIO was directed to provide the information free of cost to the Appellant and return the amount
deposited.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Page 1 of 3
Decision dated 02/11/2010:
“The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The FAA has given a clear
order dated 30/08/2010 directing the PIO & DDE (NE) to provide the information free of cost to the
Appellant and return the amount deposited. The Appellant has not been provided with the information
requested for despite the order of the FAA. The Commission therefore directs the PIO & DDE (NE) to
provide the information requested for by the Appellant free of cost and return the amount of fees
deposited. Denial of information to an Appellant under the RTI Act can only be done if what is sought is
not “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act. The PIO & DDE (NE) has neither claimed that it is not “information” nor has he claimed that it is
exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO & DDE (NE) is directed to provide the complete information requested
by the Appellant free of cost before November 30, 2010. The PIO & DDE (NE) is further directed to
return the fees of Rs. 38 deposited, to the Appellant before November 30, 2010
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO & DDE (NE) is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act by not replying within 30 days.
He has further refused to obey the orders of the FAA, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of
information may also be mala fide. The FAA has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears
that the actions of the PIO & DDE (NE) attract the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. A
show cause notice is being issued to him and he is directed to give his reasons to 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 December 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm
along with his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. He 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 and for not complying with the order of the FAA, the PIO & DDE (NE) 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 21/12/2010:
Appellant: Mr. Farhan
Respondent: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Deemed PIO & DEO(Zone-VI), C-Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095;
Mr. Jalim Singh, Principal, GBSS School, New Seemapuri, New Delhi;
The Respondent Mr. S.K. Gupta has stated the RTI application dated 26/05/2010 was received in
his office on 29/05/2010. After procuring the information from the deemed PIO & Principal, GBSS
School, the Appellant was requested to deposit `38/- vide letter dated 19/06/2010. The Appellant had
deposited the requisite fee i.e. `38/- for obtaining the photocopies on 30/06/2010. Since it was not
communicated to the RTI Cell, the requisite information had not been provided within the stipulated time.
The complete information should have been provided to the Appellant on or before 10/07/2010. However,
the information was provided after on 31/08/2010 and the additional fee of `38/- had been retuned to the
Appellant on 20/09/2010.
The Respondent states that there was no system within the department whereby the PIO would be
informed about payment of additional fee by the Appellant. Hence he states that the PIO cannot be held
responsible for the delay in providing the information. The Commission warns the Respondent to ensure
that a proper system is put in place so that once an appellant pays the additional fees for getting the
information he should get the information promptly. In view of the explanation provided by the
Respondent the Commission drops the penalty proceedings against him. However, it cannot be denied that
the Appellant had to face unnecessary harassment and also filed the first and second appeal. The
Page 2 of 3
Appellant has suffered unnecessary harassment and also received the information late because of the lack
of a proper system within the department. The Commission therefore awards a compensation under
Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act of `2000/- to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to ensure that a cheque of `2000/- as compensation is sent to the
Appellant before 30 January 2011.
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 the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
21 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA)
Page 3 of 3