के(cid:3)(cid:4)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission , बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:20) मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka , New Delhi – 110067 नई (cid:22)द(cid:24)ली

Second Appeal No. CIC/KVSAN/A/2023/143839 ि(cid:2)तीय अपील सं(cid:12)या /

K. M. Singh … /Appellant अपीलकता(cid:15) VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi … /Respondent (cid:16)ितवादीगण Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 “With due regard, it is submitted that I have preferred one representation to Ms.

Nidhi Pandey, Commissioner, KVS New Delhi on 13.02.2023 with a request to revisit my professional fee bills passed on 02.2023 which had been passed ignoring the provision laid down by Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Judicial Section vide OM dated 11.09.2000. I am enclosing the copy of my representation dated 13.02.2023.

I want following information:

(i) Action taken till date over my representation dated 13.02.2023.

(ii) Information with reasons on the points raised at para 3 & 4 of my representation dated 13.02.2023.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(i) “The payment of hearing in the case of I. K. Subi (OA No. 1061/2019) before the Hon'ble CAT Delhi has been reviewed. It has been found that payment made is correct. In order to make payment of drafting charges for counter reply and conference a copy of the counter may be provided to KVS for record.

(ii) Under RTI Act only information available can be provided. Hence, cannot be provided under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.08.2023. The order of FAA, if any, is not available on the record of the commission.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.11.2023.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Pushpendra Kumar, AC & CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the reply provided by the CPIO is inappropriate on point no.1 of the RTI Application as the reply provided therein appears to be a reply to the grievance raised in the averred representation of 13.02.2023 and does not state any information about the action taken on the said representation. In other words, the CPIO was required to restrict the reply to the mandate of the RTI Act and state the availability or unavailability of the information related to the action taken on the said representation as on the date of receipt of the RTI Application.

Now, therefore, the CPIO is directed to send a revised proper reply to point no.1 of the instant RTI Application by providing the categorical information related to the action taken on the representation as on the date of receipt of the RTI Application. The said revised reply shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

Further, as regards point no.2 of the RTI Application, the Commission finds that the Appellant has sought for reasons/justifications for the grievance raised by him in the averred representation, and the same does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as has been aptly pointed out by the CPIO.

8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) ( )

आनदं ी राम(cid:10)लगं म Information Commissioner ( )

सचू ना आय(cid:15)ु

/D