Central Information Commission
Kumari Kanchan Lata vs Ministry Of Defence on 17 May, 2017
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Dyc fcfYMax (iksLV vkfQl ds ikl)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
vksYM Tks ,u ;w dSEil, ubZ fnYyh-110067
Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
File No. CIC/RM/C/2014/000041/SD
Date of Decision:16/05/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Kumari Kanchan Lata
Advocate Central Bar
Association Diwani
Nayalaya Lucknow (UP)
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : CPIO
Army Public School 32, Punjab Lines
Faizabad Cantt (UP)-224001
RTI application filed on : 12/06/2013
PIO replied on : 24/07/2013
First appeal filed on : 19/07/2013
First Appellate Authority : No order
order
Complaint dated : 18/09/2013
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Complainant sought to know the post on which Sanjay Sarin is employed and copy of his qualification and experience certificates submitted during joining.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Suresh Singh, Adm. Officer & CPIO, Army Public School 32, Faizabad Cantt. (UP) present through VC.
Complainant stated that information sought can be denied only under Section(s) 8 and 11 of the RTI Act and since the Army Public School is a recognised body, duly affiliated to the CBSE, she has been wrongly denied information by the CPIO. She further stated that in order to expose corruption in the functioning of Army Public School she should be provided information under the RTI Act.
CPIO submitted that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant stating that Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) does not come under the purview of RTI Act and the Respondent school functions under the aegis of AWES.
Observations Commission based on the nature of relief sought in the present matter treats it as Second Appeal as it has been inadvertently registered as Complaint by the Registry of CIC.
Decision In the facts of the present matter, Commission relies on its decision in File No: CIC/RM/A/2014/004431 dated 08.09.2016 wherein the following was observed:
"....The case file was sent to the competent authority for constitution of a Division bench, to decide the issue, i.e. whether Army Welfare Education Society is a public authority or not.
The Information Commissioner, Shri Basant Seth has given his considered opinion on the case as under:2
"Regarding Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) The Commission in its earlier order dated 06.10.2009 (File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/000634) -Smt Amba Joshi vs. AWES) has held that AWES is not a public authority. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in its decision dated 20.02.2009 (CWP No. 6834 of 1996-Sudha Soin Vs. Union of India and others) while holding AWES is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has observed as under:
3 "On consideration of regulations extracted herein above, it follows that the State has no control, much less deep and pervasive control, over the respondent school or society governing it. Financial assistance is not given by the Government, rather school is maintained by the interest on corpus grant, tuition fees, other fees, donations and sundry interests. It is a financially self supporting institution..........."
Similar findings have been returned by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 20/07/2015 (WP No. 5819 of 2015-Shivali Dhillon Vs Managing Director Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) and ors.).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 07/10/2013 in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. And others V/S State of Kerala and others (Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013) has held as under:-
"40. The burden to show that a body is owned controlled or substantially financed or that a non- government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information.............................."
In the instant matter the appellant has not given any proper justification to show that AWES falls within the scope within the scope of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
Hence, there is no point of law to be decided by a division bench or reason to differ with the view taken earlier by a Coordinate bench of this Commission. "
Commission finds the present matter to be squarely falling under the perspective of the aforesaid observations. Accordingly, no further action is warranted. Appeal is dismissed.3
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4