Appellant - Mohd. Yusuf Abbasee Respondent - Government of NCT of Delhi

Transcription

1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00699 & 700 dated Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19 Appellant - Mohd. Yusuf Abbasee Respondent - Government of NCT of Delhi Facts: These are two appeals taken under file Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00699 and CIC/WB/A/2006/00700 assigned ID No. 11 and ID No. NIL by the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT, Delhi. By an application under ID no 11, Shri Md. Yusuf Abbasee of Uttam Nagar, New Delhi sought the following information from the PIO, ADE (Act), Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi: Copy of action taken on my letter dated to the Sect. of Education, Diary No dated To this, he received a reply dated from the Dy. Director of Education, District West (A) forwarding a point-wise response on the letter of from SD Public School, Kirti Nagar. Not satisfied with this response, Shri Abbasee moved his first appeal before Shri S. N. Mishra, Joint Director of Education (ACT) on , on which Shri D. R. Tamta, First Appellate Authority/RD directing as follows, passed an order: After going through the appeal, documents on the record and submissions made by the applicant and the PIO, I am of the opinion that information sought by the appellant in his appeal be given by the PIO/DDE (W-A) within 20 days of receipt of this order. The second appeal before us originates from an RTI request of addressed to the Office of the Chief Secretary of Delhi seeking certified copies in 4 cases and further information as follows: 1. Names with designations, official address and telephone No. of officials who were supposed to take action on representation by the applicant. 2. The action taken against those officials who were not doing their work as for causing harassment to the public, together with when action would be taken. 1

2 To this, he received a response on from the Assistant Director of Education (ACT) forwarding his application to Dy. Director of Education, West-A, who in turn through a response of stated that the Department has inspected the school on , and the outcome of inspection report of SD Secondary School, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi is under process. Not satisfied with the reply Shri Abbasee moved his first appeal on in the Office of Chief Secretary, Delhi. This in turn was forwarded by the SO to Chief Secretary, Shri D. S. Pandit to Shri D. R. Tamta, Regional Director of Education, who in turn passed an order on as follows: After going through the appeal, documents on the record and submissions made by the appellant and the PIO I am of the opinion that since the previous appeal of the appellant (ID NO. 23) has covered all the points of the present appeal the same has already been disposed of on giving directions to the PIO that the information sought by the appellant be given within 20 days of the receipt of the order. 1 Hence no further directions to PIO are required in the present appeal. In both cases as we may see the decision of the Appellate Authority has ordered disclosure of the information sought to appellant Shri Abbasee. However, on not receiving the information sought the appellant has moved his appeals before us praying that we direct the first Appellate Authority to supply the demanded information and copies of documents asked for under RTI Act. It has also been pleaded that action as may be deemed fit may also be taken against the action of PIO and first Appellant Authority. We have received a response to the appeal notice from both the DDE (West-A) and PIO Ms. B. Tirkey and first Appellate Authority and Regional Director Shri D. R. Tamta. The first Appellate Authority has argued as follows: 1. The first Appellate Authority is not supposed to provide any documents/information directly to the appellant. Under the provisions of the RTI act, 2005, first Appellate Authority only decides the appeal on merits and accordingly appropriate orders are passed to the PIO. In these two cases the then first Appellate Authority Shri D. R. Tamta, had passed appropriate orders within the time frame allotted under the Act. 1 Emphasis added 2

3 2. Relates to PIO. 3. Relates to PIO. 4. Jurisdiction lies with the CIC. PIO, Ms. B. Tirkey has on the other hand given the following response: ID No Information sought by the applicant was provided vide this office letter No dated ID No. Nil dated Information sought by the appellant has already been supplied by letter No dated The appeal was heard on The following were present: 1. Mohd. Yusuf Abbasee, Appellant 2. Shri J. L. Jain, assisting appellant. 3. Ms. B. Tirkey, DDE (W/A) PIO 4. Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, ADEWA/APIO Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, ADEWA has in her arguments presented the file on the basis of which first Appellate Authority and Regional Director had been approached on the question of non compliance of the orders of Shri Tamta the then Appellate Authority. On the directions of Regional Director dated DDE (W-A) had approached the Director who issued a Show Cause Notice to the SD Secondary School (Gujarat), Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. On the other hand appellant Shri Mohd. Yusuf Abbasee was informed on that because the mater was under enquiry, information sought by you cannot be provided at this stage. A copy of this Show Cause Notice was presented to us in the hearing and copies also provided to appellant Shri Abbasee. DECISION NOTICE We find that these are not appeals against the orders of the Appellate Authority in either case. The Appellate Authority had in fact accepted the 3

4 appeals in both cases and ordered that the information sought be provided. In the case under ID No. 11, we find that application was not to seek a response from the school in the letter of which in fact what has been provided by the CPIO in her initial response, but on the action taken on the appellant s requests to the Joint Director of Education to take appropriate action against the said management and the aided school at the earliest. Briefly put, the question therefore was simple: What action if any has been taken against the school management on the basis of the complaint? Similarly, in the case under file No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00700, ID No. Nil, applicant had asked for copies of several documents. The response on the other hand merely states that the school has been inspected, providing no information on the copies of documents sought. Even though it has been clarified in the hearing by respondents that in fact there are no such documents of which copies could have been provided, this needed to be clarified at the time of responding to the initial application. PIO in both these cases has merely acted as a conduit to forward documents received from one party to another. The role of PIO, which is a pivotal office under the RTI 2005, has in this case acted merely as a post office. The PIO is expected to exercise his or her mind on the information sought by an applicant and ensures that the response is in accordance with the request. Failure to do so can invite penalties and it is PIO who should be the authority to recommend such penalties in such cases. In this case, however the appeal before us is only for compliance of orders of the Appellate Authority. Respondents have presented us the documents indicating the compliance that has taken place on the original application of appellant Shri Abbasee and ID No. 11 for seeking information on what action has been taken on his complaint of The action taken has now reached its culmination through the issue of show cause notice, which answers the moot question in this case, a copy of which has been presented to us. It is not understood why the PIO took the stand that this information scould not be provided because the matter was under enquiry. There is no clause of the Act which per se exempts such information 4

5 from disclosure. Since the information on action taken sought by appellant Shri Abbasee has now been provided, the appeal stands disposed of. However, the above observations may be noted both by PIO and Appellate Authority to ensue that the inconvenience caused to appellant in the present case is not repeated in processing of applications under RTI Act. Also we had decided in Smt. Parul Bharti & Sh. Rajeev Bharti vs. Directorate of Education, NCT Delhi, Appeal Nos.CIC/WB/A/2006/00686 to dated as follows: We find that in each of the cases Deputy Director Smt. Tirkey, PIO has provided a detailed response seeking to answer each of the questions raised by appellants. However, since the questions pertained to a Government aided school, it is not understood why the Department needs to be the Public Authority for all such schools. If such schools fall within the definition of public authority as defined in sec. 2(h)(d), being controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by government, it is for those schools to fulfill their duties as public authorities, appoint PIOs and put in the public domain all the information mandated u/s 4(1) The Department of Education GNCT Delhi in exercise its authority on the designation of PIOs in various public authorities, is directed to adopt this process. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (L. C. Singhi) Addl. Registrar