Kusum Devi
Ms Kusum Devi along with some 30 other persons filed a complaint in Delhi Development Authority and in Directorate of Education that some of the schools; that are supposed to provide free education to the students from the Below Poverty Line families; are not doing so. As there was no action non part of these authorities on their complaints, they all filed applications under RTI Act seeking detailed progress report on the action taken on their complaints against these schools.
At this stage, it is pertinent to inform that the private schools in Delhi have got the lands on lease from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other Land Owing Authorities at nominal price, but one of the conditions in their lease deed is that they will provide free education to a certain number of students coming from “Below Poverty Line Families” along with the regular students. But these schools usually deny admissions to the “Free Seats”. Ms Kusum Devi and other persons filed these complaints to the DDA informing that these schools are not adhering to the agreement between DDA and the schools and so their land lease must be cancelled. As there was no action on their part, these women filed RTI applications in DDA.
As the DDA did not reply to the RTI application within 30 days, they filed complaint to the Central Information Commission (CIC) under section 18 of the RTI Act. In first two hearings the Public Information Officer (PIO) of DDA did not appear despite the fact they received a telephonic call from CIC informing them about the date of hearing. On second hearing, Chief Information Commissioner issued notice to the PIO for showing the cause that why penalty be not imposed on him.
On next date of hearing, PIO turned up and apologised for non appearance and the penalty was dropped. But the CIC awarded a lump sum of Approximately Rs. 500/- to the representatives of the applicants as cost on the account that the PIO did not appear on first two hearings, but these representatives did appear.
At this stage, PIO also provided some information– but not complete– after almost six months from the date of application. CIC later closed the case without imposing any penalty and also without verifying that the cost is paid to the representatives or not. DDA has neither provided complete information so far nor paid any money to these representatives.
Kusum Devi has challenged the conduct of CIC and also of DDA in this case.