JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The RTI Applicant, Mr. Dawa Tashi, who was a Postgraduate Teacher (Tibetan) at the Central School for Tibetans, Darjeeling, at the time, filed an RTI application on 10th July, 2014 to the Public Information Officer (‘PIO’), Central Tibetan Schools Administration (hereinafter ‘CTSA’).

He sought the following information:-

“1. When will I be receiving confirmation letter i.e. substantive capacity letter as the employee of CTSA? If no, why?

2. When will I be receiving Children Education Allowance (CEA) as per rule as the employee of CTSA? If no, why?

3. When will I be given All India LTC benefit as the employee of CTSA? It no, why?

4 Is CTSA agreeing with the Election Commission of India letter no. 30/ID/2010-ERS dated 7th Feb. 2014 where CEOs of all states and UT were instructed to not to deny voting rights to Tibetans like me, who were born between 26th January, 1950 and before 1st July, 1987. The letter also states “As per Section 3(1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the children born to Tibetan Refugees in India shall be treated as Indian Citizens based on their birth in India, on or after 26th January, 1950 and before 1st July, 1987”. If no, why?”

3. The RTI Applicant joined services under CTSA from 16th September, 1992. The PIO, Shri. A. S. Rawat, the Education Officer of the CTSA , replied in the following terms on 12^th August 2014 -

“ I am to refer to your RTI application dated 10.07.14 on the above cited subject and to say that as per RTI Act, 2005 all citizens shall have right to information but as per record your Nationality is Tibetan Therefore information under RTI Act, 2005 cannot be provided to you. IPO for Rs.l0/- (Rs Ten only) bearing No. 01F436238 for fee is return herewith.”

4. Thus, the PIO’s stand was that since the RTI Applicant was a Tibetan National, he would not be entitled to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘RTI Act’).

5. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred. Mr. Vineet Joshi, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the reply of the PIO on 15^th September 2014. On 26^th September 2014, the Appellate Authority, Mr. Vineet Joshi, wrote another letter to the RTI Applicant which reads as-

“The question asked by the applicant is not available in the material form. Therefore, same is not provided under the Rule 2(f) of RTI Act,2005.”

6. Thus, the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority. The Central Information Commission (hereinafter ‘CIC’) directed in second appeal vide its order dated 5th October, 2016 to provide the information sought by the RTI-Applicant. The directions of the CIC are as under:-

“21. The Commission directs respondent authority to provide point-wise information to the appellant consider his grievance and give action taken report with detailed reasons on his complaints, and explain why letter referred in point 4 is not implemented, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. Second appeal is posted for penalty proceedings and compliance, to 26th October at 12 noon. If there is no response from the respondent officers by that date and if they are not present for explaining the show cause notices, the Commission will be compelled to decide penalty proceedings in their absence.”

7. Simultaneously, the CIC also issued notice to the PIO who is the Petitioner before this Court as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him.

8. The said direction is contained in the CIC’s order dated 5^th October 2016.The operative portion of the said order is extracted below:-

“7. It is most deplorable that Central Tibetan Schools Administration is denying the information to its employee working in a school established/administered under their control, on an excuse that the appellant was Tibetan national though he was born in India. They ignored a fundamental principle that a person born in India attains the citizenship of India, even if his parents are from Tibet. The organisation