Central Information Commission
Mr. S.P. Siddarthan vs Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School on 24 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.3115/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/00804
November 24, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Mr. S.P. Siddarthan
Public authority: Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School
Ms. G. Indumathi, Principal & PIO
Mr. G. Ragesh Chandra, Director & Appellate Authority
FACTS:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated 18.2.2008 addressed to Principal-cum-PIO, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thirunallar requesting for the transfer certificate in favour of his wife who was the student of Government Girls High School from June 1975 to June 1985. He has stated in his application he requires this information since he has to apply for marriage certificate in the office of Commissioner, Women's Welfare Commission, Puducherry. The PIO vide letter dated 12.3.2008 informed the appellant that this information cannot be supplied since it is pertaining to 20 years old information and this information has been exempted under section 8(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant has preferred an appeal before the Director of School Education, who is First AA on 19.3.2008 for which he has not received any response. This has resulted in filing of second appeal before the Commission on 15.5.2008. The Commission has received the comments of the First AA-cum-Director of School Education by his letter dated 26.8.2008. In the comments the First AA has stated that he has heard the first appeal on 27.6.2008 in which the appellant did not attend. After hearing the PIO and after perusing the registers produced before him he has found that the registers were verified and papers have started breaking up and they are non-decipherable therefore the particulars of Smt. R.Latha could not be located.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this connection. The PIO has wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 8(3) of the Act, while denying this information. The provision of section 8(3) cannot be unilaterally applied in case if the information is pertaining to the period beyond 20 years. Section 8(3) has to be read along with section 8(1) and it has been very clearly stated where it should be applied. As far as preservation of record is concerned, it is purely the prerogative of the concerned Department. In case if the information is available even beyond 20 years it should be provided. In case 1 if it is not stipulated in their rules to preserve the record for a period of 20 years, there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to preserve the records for 20 years. This should be kept in mind while interpreting section 8(3) of RTI Act. As far as this application is concerned the appellant is requesting for the transfer certificate in favour of his wife who happened to be the student of the school from 1975 to 1985. I have also noted the averments made by the First AA in the comments. Still I direct the PIO to go through the records of the school once again and in case if this particular is available, he should provide the transfer certificate within one month from the date of receipt of this direction. In case if the records are not available if the records have been destroyed the PIO has to file an affidavit to that effect before the Commission. On these lines, the appeal is disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar Address of parties :
1. Ms. G. Indumathi, Principal & PIO, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Thirunattar, Puducherry.
2. Mr. G. Ragesh Chandra, Director & Appellate Authority, Directorate of School Education, First Floor, A Block, Perunthalaivar Kamarajan Centenary Educational Complex, Anna Nagar, Puducherry-605005
3. Mr. S. Siddarthan, 97, Main Road, Karaikal, Tirunallaree-609607, Puducherry 2