Central Information Commission
Mrs.Anju Rajput vs Ministry Of Defence on 14 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001049
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001170
File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/001276
File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001276
Appellant : Smt Anju Rajput
Public Authority : Army School, Ferozpur
Date of Hearing : 5th Oct & 11 Oct, 2010
Date of Decision : 14th January, 2011
FACTS :
The aforesaid 04 appeals have been filed by the appellant. It has been decided to dispose them of through a common order.
2. The matter is called for hearing today dated 5.10.2010. Appellant is represented by Col A.S. Atre; Dr Sanjeev Jain, Principal & Col (Retd) Amar Narvat.
3. It is noticed that in File No 001049, the appellant has requsted for information about the last attendance marked by Smt Deepali Nanda, an Ex Teacher of the School. In File No 001170, the appellant has requested for complete details of total earned leave due to the appellant and availed by her till her dismissal from service. In File No 001276, the appellant has sought broad based information regarding the appointment of Smt Nisha Anand as Administrator of the said School. As regards File No 001277, it is noticed that his file concerns the same matter as in File No 001170.
4. It is the submission of Shri Rajput that no reply whatsoever has been given by the Army School to the RTI applications referred to herein above. Shri Rajput is reminded of this Commission decision dated 8.1.2010 in File No CIC/SM/A/2009/000822 & CIC/WB/A/2008/00613 wherein this Commission had held as follows :-
"9. In view of the above, it is held that Army School, Ferozepur is not a Public Authority. Yet given the fact that the school is being headed by a senior serving officer of the Army, he has the authority to access information regarding the School for onward transmission to the appellant. The Army Station Commander, therefore, is directed to access information as requested for by the appellant, from the School and provide it to the appellant.
10. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 04 weeks time."
5. The appellant is not satisfied with this Commission's decision and pleads that in view of the evidence produced by him, Army School, Ferozpur, is a public authority and should be declared so. In other words, he is questioning the decision of the Commission referred to above. He is informed that the Commission has no authority to review its own decision and that its decision is challengeable before the High Court or the Supreme Court in writ jurisdiction.
6. It may also be placed on record that the appellant has submitted a fresh representation which is taken on record. He has also drawn the Commission's attention to the information dated 10.9.2010 furnished to him vide GSO-I, RTI, IHQ of MoD (Army) para (b) whereof reads as follows :-
"As construction of children schools is not a single project, no total cost of project is there. Children schools are approved on case to case basis as and when projected and the estimated cost is indicated in the sanction letter. The work is executed through the Military Engineering Services (MES) and funded from public funds debitable to Major Head 4076. No grant in aid is provided for running of the schools."
7. It is, thus, his submission that the Army authorities, admittedly, have been spending Government money in the construction of Army Schools and by virtue of this, these schools are 'public authority' and, therefore, liable to furnish information under the provisions of RTI Act. He has also drawn the Commission's attention to letter dated 31.3.2007 of the Quarter Master General addressed to HQ Southern Command/Q(works), Pune, wherein QMG Branch had issued sanction of Rs 611.29 lacs for the construction of children's school at Jaisalmer. Besides, he has also annexed 06 other letters under which various amounts were sanctioned for the construction of the Army School at various other locations in the country.
8. In addition, he has also drawn the Commission's attention to reply dated 11.8.2010 sent to Anju Rajput by the Army authorities which is reproduced below :-
"1. The list of remaining 7 Schools which have been sanctioned under Scale of Accommodation through AMWP (Para 1). Remaining seven Schools sanctioned are at Jaisailmer, Golconda, Pathankot, NAMS, Akhnoor, Kota and Suratgarh.
2. List of Army Schools which have been completed the construction, total cost of construction by whom construction is carried out and their funding agency, detail of grant in aid school wise and by whom (Para 3). 25 Schools have been completed through AMWP and are functioning from these buildings. These are at Jodhpur, Kolkata, Bathinda, Mamun, Bangalore, Jaipur, Alwar, Binnaguri, Narangi, Hisar, Bikaner, Patiala, Bhopal, Janglot, Gwalior, Chennai, Bengudbi, Tezpur, Chandimandir, Gopalpur, Ranchi, Dhrangadhra, Tibri, Kunraghat and Suratgarh. All these Schools have been constructed by MES. Grant in aid, if any, is given by AWES out of Regimental Funds which are non public funds."
9. It is, thus, his contention that the Government money has been expended in the construction of Army Schools and, therefore, to held that they are not a 'public authority' u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
10. Col Atre submits that a copy of the representation submitted by Shri Rajput has not been furnished to him and, therefore, he is not in a position to respond it to off hand. He requests for a short adjournment for filing a written response in the matter.
11. In the premises, the matter is adjourned to 11.10.2010 at 1030 hrs.
12. The hearing is resumed on 11.10.2010. Appellant present. The Public Authority is represented by Col. A.S. Atre and Col.(Retd.) Amar Narwat.
13. Col. Narwat submits a detailed written representation which is taken on record and the relevant pages thereof are also ordered to be given to the appellant. Two issues fall for consideration by this Commission i.e. (i) Non compliance of the Commission's decision dated 8.1.2010; and (ii) whether or not Army Public Schools are Public Authority in terms of section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
14. As regards the first issue, Col. Atre submits that the order of the Commission has been complied with and in proof thereof, he produces a copy of his letter dated 4.10.2010 through which the requisite material was sent. He, however, regrets that there was delay in sending the requisite information.
15. The appellant admits to have received some information but he is not fully satisfied with it. It is his say that the following two documents have not been supplied to the appellant viz (i) Copy of the resignation letter submitted to the School by Ms Deepali Katyal (now Nanda); and, copy of the acceptance of her resignation letter.
16. To this, Col. Atre would respond that resignation letter in-question - (original or photo-copy) is not available in the School records. As regards the acceptance letter, he submits that he would check up the position.
17. In view of the above discussion, Col. Atre is hereby directed to send a copy of the acceptance letter to the appellant, if traced out. If none of the above- mentioned documents is traceable, then he should file an affidavit before this Commission to this effect in 03 weeks from the receipt of this order.
18. Now we come to issue No. (ii).
19. It bears repetition that this issue has already been decided by the Bench of the undersigned vide decision dated 8.1.2010. Para 09 of the order in File No CIC/SM/A/2009/00822 is extracted below :-
"9. In view of the above, it is held that Army School, Ferozepur is nota Public Authority. Yet given the fact that the school is being headed by a senior serving officer of the Army, he has the authority to access information regarding the School for onward transmission to the appellant. The Army Station Commander, therefore, is directed to access information as requested for by the appellant, from the School and provide it to the appellant."
20 As per Regulations of the Commission, there is no provision for filing an appeal against the Commission's decision. The appeals cited above amount to review of the decision. Ex-facie, these appeals are not sustainable in law. Even so, Shri Rajput has traveled all the way from Ferozepur to Delhi twice to plead the case of the appellant at personal cost and has also filed detailed representation on the basis of pains taking research done by him, it will be heartless on our part to dismiss these appeals in off hand. Hence, we would like to discuss some of the issues raised by him in the succeeding paras.
21. As regards the Army School, Ferozepur, it is the submission of Shri Rajput that the Central Government sanctioned an amount of Rs. 65 lacs for the repair of the School building over a period of 04 years. Therefore, per year average expenditure comes to about Rs. 16 lacs. This, according to him, constitutes substantial financing of the School and renders the School liable to be declared a Public Authority. On the other hand, it is the submission of Col. Narwat that the Central Government sanctioned aforesaid amount of Rs. 65 lacs for a period of 10 years starting from 1993 to 2009. Thus, per year expenditure comes to about Rs. 4 lacs per year. He further submits that the annual expenditure of the School is about 1.80 crores. Thus, the funding from the Central Government amounts to only 6% per year for the material years. This, according to him, cannot be construed as substantial financing under the provisions of the RTI Act.
22. As regards other Army Schools, which according to the appellant, have been substantially financed by the Central Government,he produces information before the Commission obtained through CPIOs of the MoD which shows that an amount of about Rs. 56 crores has been sanctioned by the Central Government for Army Schools located at Jaisalmer, Golkunda, Pathankot and Suratgarh etc. According to Shri Rajput, such heavy funding by the Central Government clearly establishes that these Schools are substantially financed by the Central Government which render them liable to be declared Public Authority.
23. Col. Narwat fairly admits that the aforesaid amount has, indeed, been sanctioned by the Central Government but, according to him, if this amount is spread over the 07 Schools, a School gets about Rs. 8 crores on average. He further submits that these funds are meant for construction of School buildings and the average life span of the School building is 100 years. If the amount of Rs. 8 crores is spread over 100 years, it comes to about Rs. 8 lacs per year. According to him, assuming that the average expenditure on each of these Schools is Rs. 1.8 crores, the amount of Rs. 8 lacs constitutes 4 to 5% of the total expenditure of the School which, according to him, does not constitute substantial financing.
24. In his detailed representation, Col. Narwat has relied on the following decisions :-
(i) Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 20.2.2009 in Smt. Sudha Soin -Vs- GoI wherein it was held that Army School, Ferozepur, is not a State in terms of article 12 of the Constitution;.
(ii) Jammu & Kashmir High Court judgment dated 5.3.1997 in Smt. Asha Khosa -Vs- Chairman, Army Public School, Northern Command & Ors wherein it was held that the Army School, Udhampur, is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution;
(iii) Delhi High Court judgment dated 28.9.2008 in Army College of Medical Sciences -Vs- UoI) wherein it was held that to be classified as an aided institution, an overwhelming percentage of the day to day recurring and maintenance expenses would have to be borne by the Government on a regular basis; &
(iv) Supreme Court judgment dated 9.12.2008 in UoI -Vs- Chhote Lal & Ors wherein it was held that the regimental funds cannot be said to be public funds.
25 In addition, he has relied upon the following decisions of this Commission :-
(i) Decision dated 29.1.2007 in File No CIC/AT/A/2006/00123; &
(ii) Decision dated 18.3.2009 in File No CIC/WB/A/2007/01155/SM wherein AWWOs were not held to be public authority.
26. Shri Rajput has relied on the following authorities :-
(i) Delhi High Court judgment dated 9.12.2008 in Smt. Saroj Devi -Vs- UoI wherein it was held that Army Welfare Housing Organisation, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, does not fall outside the purview of Article 226; &
(ii) Allahabad High Court Judgment dated 16.5.2002 in Anoop Kumar Pande
-Vs- UoI wherein it was held that the Air Force School, Allhabad, is a State in terms of Article 12.
27. We have given our anxious thought to the matter under consideration. We have also carefully perused the submissions made by the parties. We are not impressed by the submissions of Shri Rajput to review our earlier decision dated 8.1.2010 wherein it was held that Army School, Firozpur, is not a Public Authority u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act, for the reasons mentioned therein. We reiterate the said decision and direct the CPIO to comply with Para 09 of the said decision extracted above.
Order reserved and pronounced on 14th Jan, 2011.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Col A.K. Vyas G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Gate No 4, IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi
2. Col (Retd) Amar Narwat Army Welfare Education Society, Adjutant General's Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army), Building No 202, Shankar Vihar, Delhi Cantt-10
3. Ms Anju Rajput 332, Kirti Nagar, Ferozpur City-152002, Punjab