Central Information Commission
Mr. S C Saxena vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 1 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003199/6629
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003199
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S C Saxena,
C 208, Pancheel Nagar (UIT), Makarwali Road,
Ajmer.
Respondent : Mr. Asif Ali
APIO & PRA Central Board of Secondary Education, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer- 305030, Rajasthan.
RTI application filed on : 19/06/2009 PIO replied : 29/06/2009 First appeal filed on : Not enclosed. First Appellate Authority order : 04/09/2009 Second Appeal received on : 21/12/2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 02/01/2010 Hearing Held on : 01/02/2010
Information Sought (with reference to cancellation of affiliation of 2 schools in Ajmer (Central Academy and Lawrence and Mayo).
a) Copy of the report submitted to CBSE by the first Inspection Committee formed under the Chairmanship of Principal Central school no 1 in the month of February/March 2009.
b) Copy of report of the second committee formed under the chairmanship of section officer of CBSE.
c) Copy of the report sent to CBSE HQ Delhi recommending the cancellation of affiliation of the 2 schools.
Reply of the PIO
a) The matter relating to Central Academy school was subjudice and a final decision was awaited. Therefore information could not be given to the Appellant.
b) The consolidated report of Lawrence and Mayo School had been forwarded to the CBSE HQ for further inquiry.
c) Information could not be given to third parties especially when the matter was subjudice. Information could not be provided to the Appellant under section 8 (1) (b), 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
The FAA observed that the Appellant had sought information as an office bearer (Secretary) of a society which had become defunct and was not recognized by CBSE though the Appellant claimed that it did through the CBSE name in the letter head. Primarily he was a third party who was not even a parent whose ward was studying in either of the 2 schools. Moreover, the schools had been given an extension of 5 years and therefore the interests of the students had been protected. Both the schools in their representation before FAA objected to any kind of information that could be given to the Appellant since the matter was subjudice, confidential and involved a third party. There was a possibility that the Appellant could misuse the information for commercial admission purpose. He was a Principal of a school in Ajmer who had been dismissed from service on account of gross irregularities. The FAA therefore disposed off the case.
Grounds of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA. The FAA acted in an arbitrary manner and the Appellant had accused the FAA of favourtism and nepotism. Moreover, there was also a conflict of interest of FAA since he not also disposed off RTI cases but was also responsible for allowing Class XI fail students to appear in Class XII Board Exam.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. P.I.Sabu, FAA & Joint Secretary; Mr. Asif Ali, APIO & PRA The Appellant has sought copies of reports of inspection committees. The PIO and the First Appellate Authority has refused to give this information on the ground that the matter was subjudice and under investigation. They had also sought the view of two schools whose affairs has been investigated in these inspection reports under Section -11 of the RTI Act. It is an error to believe that if an inquiry or inspection report is carried out against an individual or institution they become third party and have a right to be consulted before revealing such reports. The need for third party to be consulted is only when the information "relates to or has been supplied by a third party". Any one against whom allegations are inquired or investigated will always deny release of such information. Hence if Section -11 were to be resorted to such party will always state that the information must not be released. The PIO is expected to consider whether any of the exemptions of Section 8(1) will apply. A matter being subjudice cannot be a ground for denial of information. Perhaps the PIO is referring to Section 8(1)(b) which exempts, "information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;". The Parliament obviously has no intentions of exempting information merely because it is subjudice. Similarly the mere continuance of investigation cannot be a ground for denial. Section 8(1)(h) exempts, "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;". It is necessary for the PIO to show how releasing the information would impede the process of investigation. No such evidence has bee offered by the PIO.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant before 10 February 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 01 February 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)