Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar Sonu vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 5 December, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CBSED/A/2017/160661-BJ
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sonu
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Board of Secondary Education
"Shiksha Kendra, 2,
Community Centre, Preet Vihar
Delhi - 110092
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018
Date of Decision : 05.12.2018
Date of RTI application 26.05.2017
CPIO's response 06.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 17.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 31.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding Geeta International Public School, Damvatiya, School Code No. 54639, reasons for not terminating the Affiliation of the said School despite several Complaints, action taken against the School and School Management etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 06.07.2017 stated that the information sought did not come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 and further requested him to forward the RTI application to the Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Civil Lines, Allahabad, U.P . Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 3
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Seema Khakha, Assistant Secretary and Ms. Lata Arora, Section Officer, New Delhi;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Network Engineer NIC studio at Lakhimpur confirmed the absence of the Appellant. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the CPIO / FAA had already replied in the matter. During the hearing, the Commission was informed that the Appellant was the ex-Principal of the School against which a Complaint had been made and he was using RTI as a tool to seek information.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, Page 2 of 3 papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 05.12.2018
Page 3 of 3