CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002261/5340
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002261
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. N. Bharathi
Door No. 6-9-16, Surangpuram,
Bapatla - 522101,
Andhra Pradesh.
Respondent : Mr. Kanahiya Chaudhary
Public Information Officer
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan
18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi – 110062.
RTI application filed on : 05/03/2009 PIO replied : 15/05/2009 First appeal filed on : 06/05/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 07/09/2009 Information Sought:
Details of action taken on the Appellant’s appeal dated 25/05/2007.
Reply of the PIO:
The requisite information, i.e. action taken, had been furnished to Mr. V. Jayachandran, Director,
UT.2 Section, MHRD vide the office letter of even no. dated 25/31/07/2008 regarding status of
the Appellant representation dated 25/05/2007 addressed to the Hon’ble President of India.
Again the same had also been furnished to the Appellant while redressing the Appellant
grievance dated 19/06/2008 received through Addl. Comptroller, President’s Secretariat, Public
– 1 Section, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi vide the office letter no. F.11011/Appeal-32/2008-
KVS (Hqrs.)/PIC/3466 dated 12/23.11.2008.
First Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mrs. N. Bharathi;
Respondent : Mr. D.K.Tandan on behalf of PIO Mr. Kanahiya Chaudhary;
The Appellant had complaint to the President Secretariat about alleged harassment to her
by Principal of Suryalanka. In the RTI application she had sought the response to her
representation. The PIO had sent her a copy of the enquiry report. The Appellant claims that she
had made complaint about what she calls “ladies harassment by Principal Mr. P.Ishwar Sharma”.
She claims that the report given to her does not refer to this. The PIO states that the department
had informed her that no such representation about “ladies harassment” has been received. The
Appellant shows a letter of 10/09/2007 addressed to her which states, “With reference to your
application dated 22/07/2007 requesting for information under RTI Act pertaining to your
application no. 4 regarding -harassment of ladies that led to the severe financial harassment, the
EO(Vig.) has requested for extension of time to provide the required information since the same
has to be collected from the KVS, Regional Office, Hyderabad and it will take time to be
furnished.” The PIO is directed to check once again whether any enquiry had been conducted on
the complaint which she claims she has given on 9/12/2004 & 07/11/2003. The copies of these
letters have been taken form the Appellant and given to the PIO before the Commission.
The PIO is directed to check whether any enquiry has been conducted on the Complaint which
the Appellant states she has given. If any enquiry has been conducted the report will be give to
her. If no enquiry has been conducted this should be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to check whether any enquiry has been conducted on the Complaint which
the Appellant states she has given. If any enquiry has been conducted the report will be give to
her. If no enquiry has been conducted this should be stated. The PIO will provide this
information to the Appellant before 30 November 2009.
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
03 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)