2023/DHC/001799

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 15^th February, 2023

Date of Pronouncement: 13^th March, 2023

+

W.P.(C) 2670/2017 and CM APPL. 11599/2017

A S RAWAT

..... Petitioner

Through:

Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr CK Bhatt

and Mr Ayush Bhatt, Advocates (M:

9891077497).

versus

DAWA TASHI

..... Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

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:-

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

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 -

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-

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

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

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,

Second appeal is posted for penalty proceedings and

compliance, to 26th October at 12 noon. If there is no

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:-

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

conveyed to all CEOs vide ECI letter dated 27^th

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

information, to show cause why maximum penalty

should not be imposed against each of them and also

Digitally Signed

By:DHIRENDER KUMAR

Signing Date:14.03.2023

10:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/001799

9. In response to this notice which was issued by the CIC, the CTSA

took the position that the penalty would not be liable to be imposed, as the

RTI Applicant had, at the time of his appointment, clearly stated that he was

a Tibetan National and had declared his nationality to be Tibetan.

10. The reply dated 31^st October 2016 addressed to the CIC and copied to

the RTI applicant by the PIO- Petitioner is relevant and is set out below:-

“(a) Regarding his confirmation:

16.9.1992 as a temporary employee (Annexure - I) as

Kharapathar, dated 18.12.92, wherein he declared his

Nation