Central Information Commission
Prashant Prakash Vanarase vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 24 April, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBSED/A/2025/616263
Prashant Prakash Vanarase .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
RTI CELL, INTEGRATED OFFICE COMPLEX,
SECTOR - 23, PHASE-I, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI - 110077 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.04.2026
Date of Decision : 20.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 30.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 11.04.2025
2nd Appeal dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"Dear Sir/Madam, I, Prashant Vanarase, a resident of Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, hereby request the following information under the Right Page 1 of 9 to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, pertaining to the schools listed below that are operating in two shifts, in reference to the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws 2018, Chapter 15 (Special Provisions): Schools in Question:1.Affiliation Number: 11303252.Affiliation Number: 11300863.Affiliation Number: 11304704.Affiliation Number 1131249Information Requested:1.Copy of all Show Cause Notices and Final Notices issued to the abovementioned schools during the academic years 20172018 to 20242025 or till date.2.Copy of all Replies received from these schools in response to the Show Cause Notices or any other notices issued by CBSE during the period from April 2017 till date.3.Copy of all Specific Penalties or Actions Taken, including fines, suspension, or withdrawal of affiliation, against these schools. 4. Copy of Proof of Penalties Paid, if any, by the schools listed above.5.Copy of all Notings, Emails, and Official Communications related to the justifications provided by the schools for operating two shifts without CBSE approval.6.Copies of all Evidence, both documentary and digital, collected during CBSE s inspections of these schools.
7.Reasons on Record for granting an extension of Secondary level education to these schools, despite violations of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws 2018 (Chapter 15), as noted by CBSE in the year 2017.8.Names, Designations, and Contact Details of CBSE Officers involved in handling the violations for these schools from time to time. l kindly request that this information be provided by India Speed Post to the address provided below."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.11.2024 stating as under:
"Reply :- The desired information is random and unspecific in nature. The applicant did not specify the details of a document(s) required by him and instead randomly sought copies of all show cause notices and final notices said to have been issued to the concerned four Schools, its replies, action taken, proof of penalties, all notings and official communication, etc. during the academic years 2017-18 to 2024-25.
The applicant has not specified the details and date of the show cause notice(s) which is/are being sought. However, only a random duration of 09 years (2017-2025) has been provided to the CPIO to assume and provide all desired information. However, while screening the available documents, nothing as such has been found in the records.
To enable the CPIO to provide precise information as per the availability of records and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI act, the Page 2 of 9 applicant shall have to be absolutely precise with full clarity while seeking information from the public authority, as there is no provision under the RTI Act for the CPIO to assume or interpret the desired information and issue the same at random.
In view of the unspecific nature of the information sought in the RTI application, it is informed that in case the applicant requires information in material form, he should write to the CPIO listing the basic details of specific documents such as reference/letter no. or date of issue, or any other details, etc. of each document in a precise manner, rather than providing a random period thereby leaving upto the public authority to deduce the information being sought.
Point 6 As per Chapter 11, Clause 11.7 (11.7.1) of CBSE Affiliation Bye-Laws, the inspection of the School is a confidential assignment and all information provided to the member(s) is in a fiduciary capacity.
The applicant may note that the inspection reports have various components containing third-party information and personal data of the staff/society of the school. Hence, no such information can be provided under sections 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
Affiliation Bye-Laws is available on the CBSE website https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/ or at the given link: https://saras.cbse.gov.in/saras/Home/Information Point 7 Justification and reasons sought by the applicant do not fall within the definition of Information. as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005.
Point 8 The desired information even if any available in the records of the Board falls under the category of personal information of third party individuals which is exempted under section 8(1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 11.04.2025 held as under -
"...On perusal of the appeal submitted, you are informed that in respect of your application filed under RTI Act, the available information Page 3 of 9 provided vide letter dated 19.11.2024 by the CPIO is found to be in true spirit of the RTI Act 2005 and the same is validated on record. Point 1-4 The appellant has randomly sought self assumption based information about 03 different CBSE affiliated schools and has sought a plethora of information comprising of show cause notices, final notices. replies, penalties and related communication issued to these three schools during the academic years 2017-2018 to 2024-2025. Apart from this, the reasons on record for granting extension of affiliation to these schools were also sought.
Rest of the information sought for a period of 09 years w.e.f. 2017-2025 is voluminous in nature and it is not feasible to create desired information as it may involves disproportionate diversion of resources as per section 7 (9) of the RTI Act 2005. in case the applicant has himself filed any such complaint against the concerned school and wish to seek status of the same from this office, he may seek information on the same by duly specifying the complete details of any such complaint along with a copy of the complaint, if any available.
Point 5 The appellant is informed that as per available records all 03 concerned schools are as on date approved by CBSE for running of two shifts in their respective schools. Copy of following approval letters issued to all three concerned schools are enclosed for information of the appellant.
a) Affiliation Number: 1130470 approval letter dated 02.08.2024.
b) Affiliation Number: 1130086 approval letter dated 05.08.2024.
c) Affiliation Number: 1130325 approval letter dated 23.01.2025.
Point wise information on points 6-8 had been furnished vide RTI reply dt. 19.11.2024."
4. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Prashant Prakash Vanarase present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kshettery, US/CPIO present in person.
5. Written statement filed by the Appellant as well as by the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that information regarding show cause notice issued to the concerned school have been Page 4 of 9 malafidely withheld by the CPIO for the reasons best known to them. Appellant further stated that he is having a copy of show cause notice issued to New Horizon Scholar School, Plot No. 05, Sector 13, Airoli, Navi Mumbai which itself depicts that the reply of the CPIO claiming no such records were found appears to be contradictory in nature. It was the further plea of the Appellant that there is a delay caused by the FAA in disposing his First Appeal beyond stipulated period which is against the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Appellant prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter and initiate suitable action against the CPIO with directions to provide complete requested information as it is doubtful to the Appellant that school is running two shifts without following the norms and byelaws of the CBSE.
7. CPIO while inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written statement stated that on points No. 1 to 6 of RTI request, the information sought by the Appellant for the period 2017-2025 (spanning eight years) is, in its present form, founded upon hypothesis, self-assumption, and speculation, and is expressed in a manner that is random, indefinite, and non- specific. Such a request does not enable the Public Authority to reasonably identify or locate the records sought. CPIO further stated that the Appellant has not specified the exact nature and scope of the information being requested-whether it pertains to Show Cause Notices, Final Notices, copy of replies received against show cause notices, specific penalties, action taken (including fines, suspension, or withdrawal of affiliation), proof of penalties paid, copy of file notings, emails, official communications, and copies of all evidence collected during inspection. Further, no clarity has been provided as to a particular matter, reference, or violation of specific provisions of the CBSE Affiliation/Examination Bye-Laws in respect of which such information is sought, nor has the applicant identified the relevant proceedings, if any, conducted by the Board against the cited schools. In the absence of such specificity and precision, no information can be presumed, inferred, or collated by the Public Authority for disclosure under the RTI Act. Moreover, the applicant has neither indicated whether the information sought pertains to any complaint(s) filed by him, nor he stated to have identified the specific complaint(s), if any, based on which action taken details are being sought for the last 08 years. In the absence of such particulars made available, the request remains vague and indeterminate, rendering it impracticable to trace, segregate, and retrieve the relevant records from the available databases and Page 5 of 9 files of the Public Authority. Further, to the extent the request seeks details regarding action taken, if any, against the concerned or any affiliated school on the basis of complaints received from individuals other than the applicant himself, such information constitutes third-party information. The same is held by the CBSE in a fiduciary capacity and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it relates to information of a personal nature, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. For point No, 7 of RTI application, the CPIO explained that the information sought by the Appellant is in the nature of seeking justification, clarification, basis, etc. which do not conform to information as per Section 2
(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. For point No. 8, the CPIO submitted that name and personal details of CBSE officers engaged in internal administrative office and regulatory processes of public authority, as sought by the Appellant related to personal information of third parties which may also impose pressure or influence on such office, hence, such information is also exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) and Section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. Rebutting the contentions of the Appellant regarding availability of show cause notice with his written statement, the CPIO clarified that neither the Appellant mentioned his locus-standi vis-à-vis such show cause notice nor any specific details in this regard, in the absence of which, the CPIO is unable to give any factual clarification in the matter. Regarding delay in disposal of First Appeal, the CPIO tendered apology by explaining that it was attributable only to large scale relocation of various offices of public authority including head office of CBSE (affiliation unit) to integrated office complex, Dwarka, New Delhi during January, 2025 and September 2025 and that massive shifting affects the services and working of CBSE. CPIO added that the delay so caused was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice. CPIO sought time to file an additional written statement explaining the reason for delay before the CIC with a copy marked to the Appellant.
9. Post hearing, an additional written statement dated 21.04.2026 has been received from the CPIO, which is taken on record. A copy of the same is also served to the Appellant via email.
Decision:
10. Heard the parties at length.
Page 6 of 911. The Commission based on perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the queries raised by the Appellant at point No. 1 to 6 in the RTI Application under reference with preface "all" and also seeking reasons at point No. 8 of RTI application is vague and in nature which do not qualify the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied)
13. Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...." (Emphasis Supplied) Page 7 of 9
14. And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied)
15. Moreover, on point No. 8 of RTI application the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the information sought by the Appellant regarding the personal details of the CBSE officers involved in dealing with the violations of CBSE norms by the schools apparently appears to be personal information of third-party which cannot be divulged under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
16. As regards delay in adjudication of First Appeal of the Appellant, the Commission is convinced with the explanation given by the CPIO through his revised written statement explaining that it was attributable to large scale relocation of various offices of public authority including head office of CBSE (affiliation unit) to integrated office complex, Dwarka, New Delhi during January, 2025 and September 2025 and that massive shifting affects the services and working of CBSE. CPIO added that the delay so caused was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice. The Commission finds no reason to initiate any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 against the CPIO in the absence of any mala fide intent on their part.
Page 8 of 917. Considering the above facts, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO provided now as the same is found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
18. Having observed as above, no relief can be granted in this matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सध ु ा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Prashant Prakash Vanarase Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)