Central Information Commission
Mrmanish Aggarwal vs Gnctd on 21 August, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/DS/A/2013/001439SA
(Manish Aggarwal Vs. Dte of Education, GNCTD)
Appellant : Shri Manish Aggarwal
Respondent : Directorate of Education
(East), GNCTD, Delhi
Date of hearing : 31072014
Date of decision : 21082014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 3, 19(3) of the RTI
Act
Result : Appeal allowed/
Disposed of
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Ms. Neha Shankar,
Office Superintendent(RTI), O/o DDE(East), Directorate of Education, GNCTD, Delhi.
FACTS
2. The appellant submitted that through his RTI application dated 952013 he has sought information regarding one school by name DAV Public School, Shreshtha Vihar, Delhi relating to the details of its staff for the last three years, payment of DA , DP, TA and LTA etc. to its staff. The PIO has given reply by his letter dated 3052013 on which the appellant made first appeal before the FAA, who by his order dated 1772013, directed the PIO/DDE(E) to 1 provide information as and when the appellant deposits the required costs. Claiming non satisfaction over the information furnished by the respondent authority, the appellant has filed 2nd appeal before the Commission.
Decision:
3. Heard the submissions made by both the parties. The appellant submits that about 3270 Sq. mts of the playing field, which belongs to DDA, has been encroached illegally by the School and his children were not allowed to play and when he resisted against the school over this issue, he was roughed up by the security staff, at the instance of the school principal. He has filed a case in the Delhi High Court. He also submitted that according to the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, the Public Authority has to collect the information from the concerned school and provide. The same Act gives enough powers to the Public Authority as a Regulatory Authority. On the other hand, the respondent officer submitted that they are holding information regarding staff statements and annual reports sent by the school and the details which the appellant is asking, are with the school. In the present case, the School is a recognized public school run by private management. She also submitted that right to inspection of the schools is given to the Educational authorities and the same cannot be exercised by the RTI applicants.
4. In Hon'ble Delhi High Court in POORNA PRAJNA PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION [WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7265 OF 2007] whereby the question before the Court was with regard to interpretation of provisions of RTI Act. Hon'ble high Court observed that:
2"7. The terms information and right to information have been defined in Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act and read as under: 2(f). ―"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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"
2(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 the right to -
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;‖
8.
Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously. The term ―held by or under the control of any public authority‖ in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term ―information‖ as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term ―information‖ in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is ―information ‖ as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term ―held by the or under the control of the public authority‖ used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public authority and the said term ―private body‖ has been used to distinguish and in contradistinction to the term ―public authority‖ as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a 3 public authority is entitled to access, under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished ......
13. Information available with the public authority falls within section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The last part of section 2 (f) broadens the scope of the term information to include information which is not available, but can be accessed by the public authority from a private authority. Such information relating to a private body should be accessible to the public authority under any other law. Therefore, section 2(f) of the RTI Act requires examination of the relevant statute or law, as broadly understood, under which a public authority can access information from a private body. If law or statute permits and allows the public authority to access the information relating to a private body, it will fall within the four corners of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. If there are requirements in the nature of preconditions and restrictions to be satisfied by the public authority before information can be accessed and asked to be furnished from a private body, then such preconditions and restrictions have to be satisfied. A public authority cannot act contrary to the law/statute and direct a private body to furnish information. Accordingly, if there is a bar, prohibition, restriction or precondition under any statute for directing a private body to furnish information, the said bar, prohibition, restriction or precondition will continue to apply and only when the conditions are satisfied, the public authority is obliged to get information. Entitlement of the public authority to ask for information from a private body is required to be satisfied.
....
15. Section 22 of the RTI Act is an overriding clause but it does not modify any other statute or enactment, on the question of right and power of a public authority to call for information relating to a private body. A bar, prohibition or restriction in a statutory enactment, before information can be accessed by a public authority, continues to apply and is not obliterated by section 22 of the RTI Act. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act does not bring about any modification or amendment in any other enactment, which bars or prohibits or imposes precondition for accessing information from private bodies. Rather, it upholds and accepts the said position when it uses the expression ―which can be accessed‖ i.e. the public authority should be in a position and entitled to ask for the said information. Section 22 of the RTI Act, an overriding provision does not mitigate against the said interpretation for there is no contradiction or conflict between the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and other statutory enactments/law. Section 22 will apply only when there is a conflict between the RTI Act and Official Secrets Act or any other enactment. As a private body, the Petitioner School is entitled to plead that they cannot be compelled to furnish information because the public authority is not entitled to information/documents under the law. The petitioner school can also claim that information should not be furnished because it falls under any of the subclauses to 4 Section 8 of the RTI Act. Any such claim, when made, has to be considered by the public information officer, first appellate authority and the CIC. In other words, a private body will be entitled to the same protection as is available to a public authority including protection against unwarranted invasion of privacy unless there is a finding that the disclosure is in larger public interest.
16. Section 8 of the RTI Act is a nonobstante provision which applies notwithstanding other sections of the RTI Act. In other words, Section 8 overrides other provisions of the RTI Act. Section 8 stipulates the exceptions or rules when information is not required to be furnished. Section 8 of the RTI Act is a complete code in itself. Section 8 does not modify the term ―information‖ as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Whether or not Section 8 applies is required to be examined when information under Section 2(f) is asked for. To deny ―information‖ as defined in section 2(f), the case must be brought under any of the clauses of Section 8 of the RTI Act. ―Right to information‖ under the RTI Act is a norm and Section 8 adumbrates exceptions i.e. when information is not to be supplied. It is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner School that ―information‖ as defined in Section 2(f) need not be furnished under the RTI Act for reasons and grounds not covered in Section 8. This will be contrary to the scheme of the RTI Act. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is to be furnished and supplied, unless a case falls under subclauses (a) to (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Thus all information including information furnished and relating to private bodies available with public authority is covered by Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, information which a public authority can access under any other law from a private body is also ―information‖ under section 2(f). The public authority should be entitled to ask for the said information under law from the private body. Details available with a public authority about a private body are ―information‖ and details which can be accessed by the public authority from a private body are also ―information‖ but the law should permit and entitle the public authority to ask for the said details from a private body. Restrictions, conditions and prerequisites imposed and prescribed by law should be satisfied. The question whether information should be denied requires reference to Section 8 of the RTI Act. "
5. The Commission in view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is of the view that under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the authorities can seek implementation of the right to information available in any other law in force. The information sought by the appellant has to be given by the school to the appellant, through the Regulator, namely, the Directorate of Education.
Right to information includes all rights to information under different enactments including Delhi School Education Act. The Commission, therefore, directs the regulator to collect the information 5 from the School which is not exempted from disclosure under any provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission also recommends the concerned School which is subjected to regulations under the Delhi School Education Act, to furnish the required information to the Directorate of Education.
The Respondent authority is, therefore, directed to collect the information from the school within one month from the date of receipt of this order and provide the same to the appellant.
6. The appeal is disposed of.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Dy. Registrar Address of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi, Directorate of Education, DDE(EAST) Anand Vihar, NEW DELHI
2. Shri Manish Aggarwal, A102, First Floor, Yojna Vihar, DELHI110092
3. The Principal, D.A.V. Public School Shreshtha Vihar, DELHI110092 6 7