Sh. Sunetra Vishal Dass vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct Of … on 23 July, 2008

               Central Information Commission
                         2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                     Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
                             Website: www.cic.gov.in

                                                           Decision No.2897/IC(A)/2008

                                                             F. No.CIC/MA/A/2008/00743

                                                              Dated, the 23rd July, 2008

Name of the Appellant:                Sh. Sunetra Vishal Dass

Name of the Public Authority:         Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi

Facts

:

1. Both the parties were heard on 23/7/2008.

2. The appellant had sought for certain information relating to a private
school. The PIO has obtained the required information, u/s 2(f) of the Act, and
furnished to the appellant, who has expressed his full satisfaction with respect to
the information provided to him.

3. During the hearing, the appellant stated that there has been delay of 5
days in providing the information by the PIO. He, therefore, pleaded for
imposition of penalty u/s 20(1) of the Act. The PIO clarified and provided the
details of action taken by him for obtaining the information from the private
school. The PIO stated that there was no malafide intention for the delay in
providing information to the appellant, as he was not the custodian of information.
He also said that as per the Delhi School Act, the information sought for was not
covered, yet he procured for the appellant.
i

i
” If you don’t ask, you don’t get”. – Mahatma Gandhi

1
Decision:

4. The PIO has obtained the information u/s 2(f) of the Act from a private
school, which is the custodian of the required information. The appellant has
duly received the information and has also expressed his satisfaction with the
information provided to him.

5. In view of the fact that the information was not readily available with the
PIO, and that he made sincere efforts to obtain from the school, there was no
willful or malafide intention for delay of 5 days in providing the information. And,
therefore, the appellant’s plea for imposition of penalty is rejected as he has not
counted the time consumed in transmission of information, which was sought for
promotion of personal interest, rather than public.

5. This appeal was unnecessary and is thus disposed of.

Sd/-

(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar

Name & address of Parties:

1. Sh. Sunetra Vishal Dass, V-565, Gali No.13, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi –

110 053.

2. Dr. R.A. Yadav, PIO/DDE, Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi, Office
of the Dy. Director of Education, Distt. North East, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
ii

ii
“All men by nature desire to know”. – Aristotle

2