Central Information Commission
Reena Singla vs Indian Army on 20 July, 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/IARMY/A/2017/314783/SD
CIC/IARMY/A/2017/181724/SD
Date of Decision :19/07/2017
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Reena Singla
891 Sec - 7 Urban Estate
Ambala City
Haryana - 134003
Respondent : CPIO
Army Welfare Education Society
AWES Building No. - 202
Shankar Vihar Delhi Cantt - 10
RTI application filed on : 18/12/2015
PIO replied on : No reply
First appeal filed on : 04/06/2016
First Appellate Authority : 14/07/2016
order
Second Appeal dated : 18/10/2016
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Note: It may be noted that the files under reference have been clubbed for
hearing and decision as they have been registered on the basis of identical
subject matter, facts and RTI Application.
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know the action taken, if any, on her email dated 10.12.2015 to Col. RK Satyan, VSM (Retd.), Director Schools on the subject of child abuse and harassment caused in Army Public School, Ambala Cantt.1
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Appellant is aggrieved with the reply on the RTI Application stating that AWES is outside the ambit of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present with Pardeep Singla (husband), Rishabh Singla and Aditya Singla (sons) in person.
Respondent: Col S.K. Garg (Retd), Rep. of 202, HQ AWES, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantt. present in person.
Observations 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:
"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, 2 File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2017/314783/SD CIC/IARMY/A/2017/181724/SD 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.
Hearing Proceedings:
During the hearing, Appellant was informed of the abovesaid rationale, to which she agreed but desired to bring on record that she was misguided by the Respondent office to file this RTI Application, assuring that she will get information. She also brought the Commission's attention to the extraordinary circumstances of her case and expressed that she is aggrieved with the inaction of AWES on the subject when it is established that Army Schools function under the management and control of AWES.3
DECISION:
Commission although empathises with the case of the Appellant, in view of the aforesaid observations, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4