Central Information Commission
Ranbir Singh vs Gnctd on 31 October, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DIRED/A/2017/165594
CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164924
Shri Gurvinder Singh Saini ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO/O/o the Dy. Director of
Education (SW-A), Directorate of
Education, GNCTD, RTI Branch,
South West - A District, Vasant
Vihar, New Delhi. ...प्रनतवादी /Respondents
2. PIO/Delhi Sikh Gurudwara
Management Committee, GNCTD,
Guru Gobind Singh
Bhawan, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj
Sahib,
New Delhi
3. PIO/Hony. Secretary, Guru
Harkrishan
Singh School (ND) Society (Delhi Sikh
Gurudwara Management Committee
I, Purana Quila Road, Sheikhpura
House, New Delhi
Through: Shri Malay Dutt
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.07.2017 - 15.07.2017
PIO replied on : 31.07.2017 - 17.08.2017
First Appeal filed on : 03.08.2017 - 21.08.2017
First Appellate Order on : 05.09.2017 - Not on record.
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.09.2017 - 14.09.2017
WITH
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/169141
Shri Ranbir Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
Page 1 of 5
1. PIO/Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Committee, Guru Govind Singh Bhawan,
Gurudwara Rakab Ganj, New Delhi
2. PIO/O/o Secy., Guru Harkishan Public
School, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management,
Sheikhpura House, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 20.06.2019
Date of Decision : 30.10.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO Second Appeal
169141 20.06.2017 16.07.2017 18.08.2017 Nil 03.10.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
1. In CIC/DIRED/A/2017/165594, the following information was sought:
1. What is the qualification of Ms. Supreet Kaur manager of G.H.P.S. Vasant Vihar.
2. Provide the copy certificate/degree of Education qualification of Ms. Supreet Kaur, Manager of G.H.P.S. Vasant Vihar.
Having received an unssatisfactory reply from the CPIO, District South West-A, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (RTI Branch) vide letter No. DE- 54/DDE/SW-A/RTI/ID-1570/17/1614 dated 31.07.2017, the Appellant filed first appeal on 03.08.2017.
The FAA passed an order on 05.09.2017 and observed:
"The information asked for by the appellant vide point no. 2 is also exempted from disclosure vide Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005. Since the information sought for is neither available nor maintained in the office and since the instant school being Unaided Recognized Private (Minority) School does not come under the preview of RTI Act 2005, the RTI application cannot be transferred to the school and hence I find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed accordingly".
Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with his Second Appeal.
2. In CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/164924, the following information was sought:
1. Provide me the list of the Governing body of all the Guru Harkrishan Public Schools run under the aegis of Guru Harkrishan Public School Society and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Page 2 of 5 management Committee. Also provide me the copies of certificate of Educational qualification of each member of the Governing body.
2. Provide me the name of the Chairman and Manager of all the Guru Harkrishan Public School run under the aegis of Guru Harkrishan Public School (New Delhi) Society and Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. Also provide copies of their Educational certificates.
3. Provide the name of Director (Education) of Guru Harkrishan Public School (New Delhi) Society and also provide copies of his educational certificates.
4. Provide the name of the DE nominee of all the Guru Harkrishan Public School run under the aegis of Guru Harkrishan Public School (New Delhi) Society.
5. Provide the copy of DPC of all the Principal and Vice Principal appointed in all the Guru Harkrishan Public School run under the aegis of Guru Harkrishan Public School (New Delhi) Society. And also provide their certificates of Educational qualification and desirable qualification.
6. Provide the time table of Principal and Vice Principal of all the Guru Harkrishan Public School run under the aegis of Guru Harkrishan Public School (New Delhi) Society. And also provide their result since 2013.
Having received a reply from the CPIO vide letter dated 17.08.2017 denying all the information holding that GHPS is a distinct legal entity and not a public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Appellant remained dissatisfied. The Appellant filed first appeal on 21.08.2017. As per the record available before the Commission, the FAA did not adjudicate the first appeal. Feeling aggrieved; the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
3. In CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/169141, wherein Shri Ranbir Singh is the Appellant, the following information were sought:
1. Whether any office bearer or Member of DSGMC of any Principal and/or employee of Guru Harkishan Public School is/are on foreign tour as on today i.e. 20.06.2017?
2. If answer to para no. 1 above is yes, then please intimate whether the expenses on their journey is borne by the DSGMC?
3. If answer to para no. 2 above is yes, then please provide the following information Name of Duration Purpos Class Expenses Expenses Page 3 of 5 officer bearer of travel e of by borne by the borne by the or member of with journe which DGSMC/GH DGSMC/GH principal/offi date of y travelle PS on air PS on their ce of GHPS arrival d tickets. stay abroad.
& departur e 1 2 3 4 5 6 The PIO/DSGMC, vide letter dated 16.07.2017 informed the Appellant that the information which he is seeking in his RTI application, to queries no. 1,2 &3 is "No", in so far as the information is related to Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee. Further information was related to GHPS and accordingly his application was transferred to GHPS Societies (New Delhi) u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 18.08.2017 which was not adjudicated. Therefore Appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission.
Reply of PIO:
4. The common reply of GHPS across the three appeals is consistent that, it is not a public authority. However, the appellant disputes the stand of the PIO and asserts that GHPS is a public authority as declared by this Commission in the decision titled as S. Kulwant Singh Baath Vs. Principal GHPS Shahdara being appeal No. CIC/SG/a/2009/003014 dated 10.02.2010. He submits that after an elaborate discussion on the issue of GHPS being a public authority, the single bench of Commission has directed the PIO, GHPS to furnish information. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant strenuously argued that once the issue has been decided by this Commission, any later decision of equal strength of the Commission could not have disputed the correctness of the aforesaid decision. He submits that a later decision in Bhupinder Singh Vs. GHPS dated 26.04.2018 in a batch of 26 appeals wherein another single bench of this Commission called upon the Appellant to prove that GHPS is a public authority is per incurium. Since it does take in account the aforesaid decision passed in, the case of S. Kulwant Singh Baath the Ld. Counsel further relied upon another decision of this Commission reported in appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2016/000166 wherein another single bench of this Commission issued directions to PIO GHPS under the RTI Act.
5. On the other hand the representative from DSGMC is present and heard. She submits that DSGMC has no control over day to day working of the GHPS and GHPS enjoys autonomy in its finances and decision making.
Page 4 of 56. A perusal of various decision by this Commission on the issue of GHPS being a public authority or not presents a blurred image. It appears that there have been contradictory decision/s on the issue by benches of equal strength. Yet another submission of the Ld. Counsel for appellant is that as on day the decision in the case of Bhupinder Singh vs, GHPS was pronounced in the favour of GHPS vide decision dated
26.-04.2018, his appeals were also pending before the Commission and hence he ought to have been heard on this issue. He vociferously contends that the inability of the appellant in the case of Bhupinder Singh vs. GHPS to satisfy this Commission regarding the applicability of the RTI Act on GHPS cannot operate as res judicata over him. He contends that the Ld. Commissioner while pronouncing the aforesaid decisions has not merely rejected the RTI applications and has not dealt with merit of the case on the question of GHPS being a public authority or not. He further submits that a decision dated 10.02.2010 in appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003014 has attained finality as the same was not challenged before any judicial fora. On force of the aforesaid submissions, the appellant pleads that he may be allowed to place some material before the Commission to buttress his contention that GHPS is a public authority.
7. The Commission finds that there is some substance in the contention of the appellant and merit in his submission. The decision in S. Kulwant Singh Baath vs. Principal GHPS dated 10.02.2010 binds the parties. It is not the case of respondent GHPS that aforesaid decision has been challenged or rescinded by any judicial forum. In view of the earlier decision of the Commission, and the fact that this decision of year 2010 was not brought to the notice of Ld. Commissioner in the case of Bhupinder Singh Vs. GHPS, the issue of GHPS being a public authority is settled.
8. Accordingly the PIO is directed to furnish complete information to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order subject to Section 8 of RTI Act.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5