Central Information Commission
Shamshir Khan vs Embassy Of India, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 10 February, 2022
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या/Complaints No.
CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/666342 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699806
CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/667683 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699848
CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/667924 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/600567
CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/669600 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/602984
CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/669607 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/604738
CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/672832 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/605618
CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699654 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/607625
CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699676
Dr. Shamshir Khan शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh ...प्रततवादीगण/Respondent
Through: Shri Saqib-Advocate
Date of Hearing : 09.02.2022
Date of Decision : 10.02.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO Complaint
No. on received on/
dated
666342 14.12.2019 31.12.2019 27.01.2020 10.02.2020 09.03.2020
667683 28.01.2020 06.02.2020 13.02.2020 17.02.2020 25.03.2020
667924 04.02.2020 12.02.2020 14.02.2020 16.03.2020 06.04.2020
669600 10.02.2020 18.02.2020 17.03.2020 12.04.2020 04.05.2020
669607 28.01.2020 12.02.2020 21.02.2020 19.03.2020 01.05.2020
672832 14.03.2020 29.03.2020 17.03.2020 12.04.2020 06.05.2020
699654 26.04.2020 05.05.2020 05.05.2020 18.05.2020 11.01.2021
699676 27.04.2020 05.05.2020 05.05.2020 18.05.2020 12.01.2021
Page 1 of 16
699806 01.05.2020 31.05.2020 30.06.2020 26.07.2020 12.01.2021
699848 25.04.2020 05.05.2020 05.05.2020 18.05.2020 12.01.2021
600567 27.03.2020 16.04.2020 29.04.2020 11.05.2020 15.01.2021
602984 03.12.2020 24.12.2020 02.01.2021 25.01.2021 01.02.2021
604738 05.06.2020 16.06.2020 22.06.2020 16.07.2020 12.02.2021
605618 31.05.2020 16.06.2020 23.06.2020 16.07.2020 01.02.2021
607625 29.04.2020 05.05.2020 02.02.2021 01.03.2021 02.03.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/666342 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.12.2019 seeking name of school parents of International Indian School Buraidah, Saudi Arabia whom Character certificates were issued by the Embassy in 2015 and in 2018.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide letter dated 31.12.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 27.01.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 10.02.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO clarifying that the Embassy of India does not issue any character certificates.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
The Complainant has sent a submission dated 05.02.2022 referring to various annexures which are not found attached with the submission.
(2) CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/667683 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2020 seeking the following information:-
In the public domain there is an Indian Embassy help desk email-Id:
[email protected]. Please provide me the information about the embassy officer who is handling this email id.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide letter dated 06.02.2020 replied that the email id: [email protected] is not of Embassy of India, Riyadh.Page 2 of 16
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 13.02.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 17.02.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
The Complainant has sent a submission dated 06.02.2022 reiterating his contentions.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(3) CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/667924 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.02.2020 seeking action taken/outcome/findings of his complaint which was supposed to be examined by competent authority.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide letter dated 12.02.2020 repliedas under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 14.02.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 16.03.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
The Complainant has sent a submission dated 06.02.2022 reiterating his contentions. Among the annexures, he has attached the Delhi HC decision dated 31.01.2018, in WP No. 8993/2017 in the case of Dominic Simon vs Central Public Information.
(4) CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/669600 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.02.2020 seeking information on the following 02 points:-
Colonel Maneesh Nagpal is an observer of International Indian School Buraydah (IISB) from Embassy of India, Riyadh and as per IISB regulation chairman/secretary of school management committee (SMC) have to send either the meeting agenda (in advance)/meeting minutes or can invite observer to attend meeting of SMC.Page 3 of 16
Therefore, I want to ask public information officer to provide the information:
1. About the date on which SMC meeting was scheduled wherein the decision were taken to make appeal/request in the General Court of Buraydah to allow school to issue Transfer Certificate of children of Dr. Shamshir Khan.
2. Has SMC approved the above mentioned meeting agenda.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide letter dated 12/18.02.2020 replied as under:-
Please be informed that the International Indian schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are governed directly by the Saudi Ministry of Education through a set of Governing Rules and Charter issued by the local authorities and do not come under the purview of the RTI Act of the Government of India.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 17.03.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 12.04.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 06.02.2022 has been received from the Complainant reiterating his contentions.
(5) CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/669607 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2020 seeking information on the following point:-
Embassy has issued character certificate in 2012 to Mr. Naseemuddin who was working in Qassim University, Buraydah, Al-Qassim and I had reported to Mr. Hifzur Rahman (embassy officer) in 2014 that Mr. Naseemuddin moral conduct and behavior is not good (copy of RTI reply is attached).
Therefore, I am requesting to Public information Officer to provide me information that what action was taken by embassy against Mr. Naseemuddin.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide letter dated 12.02.2020 replied that there is no report in their records about Mr. Naseemuddin.Page 4 of 16
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 21.02.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 19.03.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 06.02.2022 has been received from the Complainant reiterating his contentions.
(6) CIC/EIRSA/C/2020/672832 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2020 seeking information on the following point:-
School principal of International Indian School Buraydah works under the supervision of observer from Indian embassy, Riyadh. Therefore, I am requesting to PIO to provide following information.
1. What was the educational qualification and teaching experience of former school principal Nasreen Syed before joining as school principal in IISB.
2. Please provide the copy of her teaching experience certificate and educational qualification.
3. Nasreen Syed educational certificate was stamped by ministry of human resource department/embassy or not.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide letter dated 29.03.2020 replied as under:-
Please be informed that the International Indian schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are governed directly by the Saudi Ministry of Education through a set of Governing Rules and Charter issued by the local authorities and do not come under the purview of the RTI Act of the Government of India.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 17.03.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 12.04.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 5 of 16(7) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699654 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2020 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide online reply dated 05.05.2020 replied as under:-
1. You are advised to contact the Ministry of Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
2. The International Schools operate under the rules and bylaws of the Kingdom of SaudiArabia, which do not fall under the purview of the Right to Information Act of the Governmentof India.
3. As per Ser 2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 05.05.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 18.05.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 06.02.2022 has been received from the Complainant reiterating his contentions.
(8) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699676 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.04.2020 seeking information on the following 05 points related to IIS Parent Charter which was issued by Embassy of India, Riyadh (Ref- IISB School Principal, Dr. M. Jameeluddin Iqbal):-
Page 6 of 16The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide letter dated 05.05.2020 replied as under:-
1. The International Schools operate under the rules and bylaws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and do not fall under the purview of the Right to Information Act of the Government of India.
2. As per Ser 1.
3. As per Ser 1.
4. As per Ser 1.
5. As per Ser 1.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 05.05.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 18.05.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(9) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699806 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.05.2020 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
The CPIO, MEA, Consular, Passport and Visa Division transferred the RTI application online to the CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh on 04.05.2020.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh sent online reply dated 31.05.2020 stating as under:-
1. The matter is sub judice as on date.
2. As per Sec 1.
3. As per Sec 1.Page 7 of 16
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 30.06.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 26.07.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(10) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/699848 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2020 seeking information on the following 02 points giving a reference-"RIY/DW/10/Edu 16 April 2020, stated that School Observer is CPIO from the Embassy of India to reply to queries on matters that relate to functional issues of these Schools" of reply of the RTI application dated 27.03.2020:-
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh sent online reply dated 05.05.2020 stating as under:-
1. The International Schools operate under the rules and bylaws of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which do not fall under the purview of the Right to Information Act of the Government of India.
2. As per ser 1.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 05.05.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 18.05.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(11)CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/600567 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2020 seeking information on the following 03 points about Indian schools (CBSE Foreign Schools) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
1. List the name of all schools (with address detail) for which Col. Maneesh Nagpal is appointed as CPIO (Schools Observer).
Page 8 of 162. Provide the reason that under which section of RTI Act, the International Indian Schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia do not come under the purview of the RTI Act of the Government of India.
3. Provide the name of local authorities in Buraidah, Al-Qassim who issued the school Charter. Please specify the date of issue/date of modification in the Charter.
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh sent online reply dated 16.04.2020 and stated as under:-
1. Please refer to your RTI application under registration number MEARI/R/E/20/00035 dated 27 March 2020.
2. It is informed that there are 10 schools christened as International Indian Schools established in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which are run under the patronage of the Embassy of India through provisions, laws and bylaws of Ministry of Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia issued from time to time. The School Observer is CPIO from the Embassy of India to reply to queries on matters that relate to functional issues of these Schools, where applicable.
3. These schools are governed by a Charter issued by the Ministry of Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which does not come under the purview of RTI Act of the Government of India.
4. The Charter for International Schools in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been issued by the Ministry of Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 29.04.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 11.05.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(12) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/602984 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.12.2020 seeking the following information:-
"on what ground the Authorities of Embassy of India Riyadh took decision to issue Transfer Certificate (issue date 6th April 2020). Please note that Chairman of IISB has given the information regarding above decision of embassy during conversation on mobile phone which is on record."
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh sent online reply dated 24.12.2020 stating as under:-
Page 9 of 16"The International Indian Schools operate under the rules and bylaws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As per Delhi High Court decision, International Indian Schools located in Saudi Arabia do not constitute a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 and hence do not fall under its purview."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 02.01.2021. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 25.01.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(13) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/604738 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2020 seeking information on the following 03 points about school staff Amal Ahmed Mohamed Saad who was employed in IISB (CBSE Affil. code 5730006).
1. When she joined the school.
2. When she got work permit and got eligible for work legally (provide copy of evidence).
3. When she transferred on school sponsorship (Naqal Kafala).
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh sent online reply dated 16.06.2020 stating as under:-
"the International Indian Schools operate under the rules and bylaws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which do not fall under the purview of the Right to Information Act of the Government of India. Details sought in respect of Amal Ahmed Mohamed Saad are personal in nature and cannot be shared."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 22.06.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 16.07.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(14) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/605618 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2020 seekingreason for dissolving Management Committee of International Indian Public School, Riyadh (CBSE Affiliation No. 5730010) in 2019.
Page 10 of 16The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide online reply dated 16.06.2020 stated as under:-
"The International Indian Schools operate under the rules and bylaws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which do not fall under the purview of the Right to Information Act of the Government of India."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 23.06.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW) vide order dated 16.07.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(15) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/607625 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2020 seeking information on the following 03 points:-
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh vide online reply dated 05.05.2020 stated as under:-
1. The matter is sub judice as on date.
2. As per Ser 1.
3. As per Ser 1.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 02.02.2021. The FAA/HOC & (CW) vide order dated 01.03.2021 disposed of the First Appeal with the following observation:-
Page 11 of 16Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Respondent has submitted a combined written submission dated 08.02.2022 with respect to the above complaints. Among the other detailed contentions put forth, the Respondent has placed reliance on two specific decisions of the Delhi High Court, which is very pertinent with respect to the common subject matter in all of these complaints, viz. the governance mechanism of the International Indian Schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and legitimacy of the various functionaries. An excerpt of the comprehensive submission filed by the Respondent provides a background of the actual dispute which has culminated into the filing of the aforementioned 15 complaints and is as follows: The two minor children of Dr. Shamshir Khan were issued Transfer certificates by the School in 2020. This was a decision taken solely by the School authorities, and as such, the Embassy has no role in the matters of admission or termination of the students in the school. Dr. Khan, the RTI Applicant also approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed a writ petition in the Delhi High court numbered as W.P. (Civil) No. 3071 of 2020 seeking reinstatement of his two minor children in the said school. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, vide its judgment dated 18.11.2020, has been pleased to dismiss the said writ petition of the RTI Applicant on the ground of maintainability.
The Respondent has further contended in his submission as follows:
the RTI Applicant-Appellant herein preferred an intra court appeal impugning the judgment dated 18.11.2020 passed in W.P. (Civil) No. 3071 of 2020 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of the Delhi High Court before the Hon'ble Division bench in LPA No. 97/2021. Vide order dated 16.08.2021, the Hon'ble Division Bench has been pleased to order as under: -
"Learned counsel for the Appellants, on instructions from the Appellants, seeks to withdraw the present appeal as the grievances ventilated in the appeal stand redressed. In view of the aforesaid submission, this appeal along with the pending application is disposed of as withdrawn."
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and the Complainant contended that he is aggrieved by the issuance of the transfer certificate by the school, viz. International Indian School, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia to his children. The Complainant stated that in view of the relief provided Page 12 of 16 by the Hon'ble High Court vide its decision dated 31.01.2018 in WP(C) No. 8993/2017, the school in question falls within the purview of the RTI Act. The Complainant further placed reliance on the decision in the case of National Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. vs Central Information Commission &Ors. dated 15 April, 2010 in support of his argument that the International Indian School, Buraidah falls within the ambit of the Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision After hearing the parties at length and perusal of the records submitted by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the primary issue to be decided is the maintainability of the complaints under the RTI Act, 2005, particularly, in view of the two judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi declaring that Indian International Schools located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia cannot be considered as public authorities within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act as they are neither controlled nor funded by an appropriate government.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while deciding the WP(C) No. 3071/2020 titled Sarah Khan vs. Union of India & Ors.vide its order dated 18.11.2020 has elaborately analysed the facts including bye-laws of CBSE and jurisdiction thereof with respect to foreign schools, the rules and regulations framed by the Department of Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and role of the Indian Embassy in the functioning, administration and management of the International Indian Schools, particularly the one at Buraidah, Saudi Arabia. The writ petition No. 3071/2020 was filed by the Complainant- Dr. Shamshir Khan on behalf of his children, who were students in the International Indian School, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia and had been transferred out of the school vide Transfer Certificates dated 06.04.2020. The Court while deciding the question of maintainability of the writ petition and jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court referred to the earlier decision dated 31.01.2018 of the Delhi High Court in the case of Dominic Simon v. Central Public Information Officer & Anr., which also dealt with the same school in Saudi Arabia. Relevant excerpts of the decision dated 31.01.2018 have been reproduced as under:
"2. The petitioner also prays for an order: (i) declaring that "the International Indian Schools in Saudi Arabia come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005"; and (ii) directing the respondents to disclose the information sought by the petitioner.
Xxxxxxx "..7. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is affirmed that all the International Indian Schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are directly controlled by the Saudi Ministry of Education through a set of (i) Organizing Rules and (ii) the Charter of International Indian Schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is affirmed that since more than three million Indians are residing in the Kingdom of Saudi Page 13 of 16 Arabia and education in Saudi Arabia is expensive, Saudi Arabian authorities have issued licences to run ten International Indian Schools, which are located in nine cities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. These schools are affiliated to CBSE.
8. It is also affirmed that the Indian Embassy of the Indian Government does not shoulder any administrative or financial responsibility with regard to the said schools. It is stated that the said schools are run by financial contribution of the members of the Indian community. The schools are managed by a Higher Board (hereafter the HB) and the Managing Committee of the International Indian Schools in Saudi Arabia. It is stated that the Indian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia has been given the status of "Patron" as a special gesture by the Saudi Authorities. It is stated that he has no effective role to play and his status as a patron is merely symbolic. Based on the aforesaid status, he is also a Member of the Managing Committee. It is stated that he can attend the meetings of the said Committee as an Observer but he has no voting right in the decisions of the said Committee. He also has a right to nominate a person to attend the meetings as an Observer in his place.
9. In view of the above, the Indian International Schools located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia cannot be considered as public authorities within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act as they are neither controlled nor funded by an appropriate government.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a circular issued by the Indian Embassy inviting applications for Members to be nominated to the Managing Committee, as well ascertain press releases made by the Embassy of India. The said circular and the press releases do not advance the case of the petitioner as the Indian Ambassadors nominee also does not have any right to vote and merely acts as a nominee of the Indian Ambassador.
11. The learned counsel also referred to the Inspection Report by the CBSE, which states that the Managing Committee of the Schools is appointed by the Ambassador to oversee the functioning of the school. However, the said statement is clearly incorrect in view of the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondent."
Emphasis supplied The Court had further observed, in respect of the specific facts of that particular case:
Page 14 of 16"...18. The respondents are directed to disclose the complaints received against the petitioner provided that the same are available with the Indian Embassy at Saudi Arabia. It is clarified that the Indian Embassy is not required to take any steps to secure this information from other sources; in other words, the said complaint would be disclosed to the petitioner, only if the same is available with the Indian Embassy.."
Emphasis supplied In line with the ratio of the above decision, the Hon'ble Court concluded the decision dated 18.11.2020 in the case of Sarah Khan vs. Union of India & Ors.with the following observation:
"..49. As held above, this Court, in respect of the same school, has already come to the conclusion that the school would not be a `public authority' for the purpose of the RTI Act in India. Similarly, for the purpose of quashing of Transfer Certificates issued by the school, which is an action wholly within the administration and control of the management of the school, this Court concludes that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Further, due to the school being located in a foreign land, no directions can be issued..."
The above legal position attained finality with the LPA No. 97/2021 filed by the Complainant, challenging the decision dated 18.11.2020, being withdrawn by him as recorded in the decision dated 16.08.2021 as under:
"Learned counsel for the Appellants, on instructions from the Appellants, seeks to withdraw the present appeal as the grievances ventilated in the appeal stand redressed.
In view of the aforesaid submission, this appeal along with the pending application is disposed of as withdrawn."
Thus in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Delhi High Court, one of which relates directly to the Complainant and the subject matter is akin to the issues discussed in the above complaints, the legal position is clear that the 15 complaints filed under RTI Act are not maintainable since the school in question is not a public authority and does not fall within the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The abovementioned decisions also clearly held that the role of the Indian Embassy is very limited in the management of the school, hence the queries raised by the Complainant in the above mentioned 15 cases could not have been answered better than they have been. Hence it is evident that there has been no malafide denial of information by the Respondent, therefore, no ground for adjudication under Section 18 of the RTI Act subsists in this case.
Page 15 of 16In the light of the above detailed discussion, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the above complaints are not maintainable and disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. सिन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner(िूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 16 of 16