Central Information Commission
Manoj M. V. vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 19 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/CBSED/C/2022/649713
Manoj M. V. ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Central Board of Secondary Education (Ministry of Education),
Regional Office, BSNL RTTC Campus, Kaimanam,
Thiruvananthapuram-695040 (Kerala).
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10.08.2022
CPIO replied on : 17.08.2022
First appeal filed on : 23.08.2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 14.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 18.09.2023
Date of Decision : 18.09.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:
1. Does the receipt pertaining CBSC guidelines or regulations?
Yes, or no, please specify the guidelines for an admission procedure for LKG.
2. What is the fees structure for an admission relating to school?
3. Is this receipt being found genuine in school records and legally valid? Yes, or no, please specify the reasons.
Page 1 of 54. What are the components that should include in an admission receipt or an invoice as per CBSC guidelines?
• CPIO furnished reply, dated 17.08.2022, as under:
".. Chapter 7 of CBSE affiliation bye laws regarding school fees is enclosed herewith .."
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed First Appeal dated 23.08.2022.
• The FAA vide its order dated 05.09.2022 held as under :
I have completely studied the case. The copy of chapter 7 of CBSE Affiliation by laws regarding school fees had already been provided by the PIO vide this office letter dated 17.08.2022. It is also informed that the information regarding said fees receipt is not available in this office. I am satisfied with the reply/information provided by the PIO. Accordingly, the case is disposed off.
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: Mr. Madhavan Nayar- Father of Complainant, AR Respondent: Absent The father of Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the Respondent till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought in the instant RTI Application.Page 2 of 5
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of PIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, present PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary.
The present PIO is directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action will be initiated against him/her.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx Page 3 of 5 "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him.
The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaints u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5