Central Information Commission
Mr.M R Sharma vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 20 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002454/7516
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002454
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. M. R. Sharma
760 E, Lohia Gali No.1,
Babarpur Shd, Delhi-110032.
Respondent : Mr. R. N. Sharma
Public Information Officer & DDE Directorate of Education, GNCTD O/o the DDE, District North East RTI Cell, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.
Principal
Little Flowers International School
C 11-12, 110 ft. Road
Kabir Nagar, Shahdara Delhi 110032
RTI application filed on : 27/03/2009
PIO replied : 11/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 12/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 13/07/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 30/09/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 13/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 18/11/2009 & 08/03/2010
The Appellant has sought following information under RTI Act, 2005 in r/o Little Flowers International School, C 11-12, 100 ft. road, Kabir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032:-
Sr. Information sought PIO's reply 1. Whether the school is recognized by Dte. of Education? No.
2. If not, under whose control (Dte. of Edn./MCD/or any other Little Flower Education agency) the school is being run? Society Regd.
C-11-12 (100 Feet Road) Kabir Nagar, Shahdara.
3. A list of appointed (trained) teachers alongwith their names N.A. & qualifications may be provided.
4. Are these teachers being paid in accordance with the scales N.A. as per the recommendation of 5th Pay commission?
5. What are the criteria of enhancing school fee? N.A.
6. Is the school management going to implement the N.A. recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission?
7. Is it incorrect that fee is to be enhanced only by those N.A. schools that are paying salaries to teaching/non-teaching staff as per the scales applicable to officials/teachers Page 1 of 4 deployed in government schools?
8. Will there be any demand in future for arrears on account of N.A. enhancement of fee, retrospectively?
Grounds for First Appeal:
No reply received from the PIO.
The First Appellate Authority order:
"It is understood that the PIO and the officials dealing with the RTI have not appreciated the process to be followed which is as under:-
1. Whatever information is available and is admissible be given to the Appellant.
2. In case any information is not available, the same should immediately be transferred to the concerned PIO.
The PIO/DDE (North/East) is directed to take action within 07 days, failing which penalty will be imposed under the RTI Act, 2005."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO and FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 November 2009 "The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. M. R. Sharma;
Respondent: Absent;
The PIO has not given the information sought about Little Flowers International School on the ground that it is not recognized by the Department of Education. The Appellant contends that the regulation of all schools in Delhi has to be run by Directorate of Education as per Section-3 and Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act 1973. Section 20(1) of the said Act states, "Whenever the administrator is satisfied that the managing Committee or the Manager of any school, whether recognized or not, has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any rule made there under and it is expedient in the interest of the School Education to take over the management of such school, he may, after giving the managing committee of the manager of such school, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, take over the management of such school for limited period not exceeding three years." The Appellant therefore contends that the Department of Education has to exercise control over any institution that goes by the name of 'school' in Delhi.
In view of this a notice shall be issued to the Director Education to give its view on this matter. The case was adjourned to study the points raised by the appellant and a fresh hearing was fixed on 8 March 2010."
Note: The Commission after analyzing Delhi School Education Act and related rules, vide its letter dated 08/02/2010 issued a hearing notice to the Appellant, Respondent and the Little Flowers International School, Shahdara Delhi directing them to appear before the Commission on 08/03/2010 at 4.30PM to express their position.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 08 March 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. M. R. Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. R. N. Sharma, PIO & DDE, Directorate of Education, GNCTD;
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dua, Management Committee Member Little Flowers International School, Shahdara Delhi;Page 2 of 4
The Appellant relies on Section 20 of the Delhi School Education Act 1973.
The Respondent states that Section 20 is only a condition for taking over the management of the School. The Respondent contends that this would be done in the rarest of cases. The Appellant states that unless the Department obtains some information from the School which may be unrecognized it will not know when the School is not meeting its duties under the DSE Act. The Respondent contends that the department has never taken over unrecognized schools so far and does not obtain any information from such schools. The Respondent also relies on the Supreme Court Judgment "The fact the school was in existence at the commencement of the Act cannot confer on it the status of a recognized school and make it subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. To clothe it with that status, it is essential that it should have been a "recognized private school" as contemplated by the Act. (The Principal and others Vs. The Presiding Officer and Others AIR 1978 SC 344)"
The Appellant claims that the preamble of the DSE Act states that it is, "an Act to provide better organization and development of school education in the Union territory of Delhi and for connected there with or incidental there to." He therefore contends that it is necessary that the Department must discharge its duty of regulating all schools whether recognized or not.
The Decision was reserved during hearing.
Decision announced on 20 April 2010:
The Commission has perused the records on file and the submissions made by the parties. It is clear that the school in question is a private entity. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act provides-
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; (emphasis supplied) The High Court of Delhi in Poorna Prajna Public School v. CIC & Ors W.P. (C) 7265 of 2007 while deciding whether information pertaining to a private school could be provided to the RTI Applicant had held in its decision dated 25/09/2009-
"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."
In the present case, as the school in question is an unrecognized unaided school, the only time when the Public Authority, i.e. the Directorate of Education, can have access to information pertaining to the school is when the management of the school is taken over by the Administrator as per Section 20 of the DSE Act 1973. In such cases, if information is sought about such a school, the Directorate of Education would have to provide the information. However, that is not the case in the present matter. Neither is the information sought by the Appellant information that the Administrator is known to have received which The Appellant's contention is that information can still be provided to him with regard to the unaided unrecognized school in question because for the Administrator to come to the conclusion that the management of any unrecognized school has neglected to perform its duties under Section 20 of the DSE Act, the Administrator must be receiving certain amount of Page 3 of 4 information from that school. This would be information relating to a private body 'which can be accessed by a public authority under any law in force'. According to the Appellant, the information thus received by the Administrator would also include the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application.
If one were to accept the argument presented by the Appellant, the Administrator would have to receive information from every school in Delhi - recognized and unrecognized. The Commission is unable to accept this argument for two reasons. First, a perusal of the DSE Act 1973 reveals that the Act is mainly targeted towards the administration of recognized aided/unaided schools. Other than Section 20 of the DSE Act, no other Section refers to the management of an unrecognized school. Therefore, it is clear that the Directorate of Education is only expected to exercise any control over an unrecognised school in exceptional situations. To then say that the Administrator has to receive information from both recognized and unrecognized schools at a regular basis, would be going against the spirit of the Act. There would virtually be no difference between a recognised and an unrecognized school- a distinction deliberately drawn by the legislators in the DSE Act.
Second, it is clear from the drafting of the Right to Information Act that the legislators have intentionally kept private entities out of the purview of the statute except in situation as mentioned in Section 2(f) - information pertaining to a private body which can be accessed by the public authority under any law in force. This clause is clearly an exception and therefore cannot be liberally interpreted. Keeping this in view, one may now consider the relevant provision in the DSE Act. Section 20 of the DSE Act does not define the nature of information to be collected by the Administrator nor does it mention the criteria based on which the Administrator has to come to the conclusion that the management of the school has neglected to perform its duties. If the contention of the Appellant is accepted, every category of information from each unrecognized school in Delhi would be accessible under the Right to Information Act which certainly could not have been intended consequence of the last clause in Section 2(f). Information that can be accessed under any law in force has to be a defined type of information. The mere possibility that information may be sought by the Public Authority (in this case the Administrator) in exceptional situations, does not satisfy the requirement of the last clause of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Hence the Commission concludes that the information sought by the appellant cannot be accessed by the Public authority under the law.
Appeal is disposed off.
The information sought by the Appellant with regard to unaided unrecognized school cannot be provided by the Directorate of Education, since it is not held by it, nor can it be accessed under the law.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 April 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AK) Page 4 of 4