Central Information Commission
Sumant Kumar Dixit vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 17 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2019/110300/02648
File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2019/110300
In the matter of:
Sumant Kumar Dixit
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Central Board of Secondary Education
Shiksha Kendra 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110 092
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/11/2018 CPIO replied on : 26/12/2018 First appeal filed on : 26/12/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 05/02/2019 Second Appeal dated : 01/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 16/01/2020 Date of Decision : 16/01/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Smt. Seema Khakha, Assistant Secretary and CPIO, present in Person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the details of relationship among Smt. Preeti Srivastava (Principal), Bhuneshwar Lal Srivastava (Manager) and Krishna Devi of K K Public Academi, Bhatni.
2. Whether a govt. employee can be appointed as the Manager of recognized/non- recognized school. If so, provide details.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is aggrieved with the reply because Shri Bhuneshwar Lal Srivastava (Manager) and Smt. Preeti Srivastava (Principal) are husband and wife and are related to the same school which is against the norm of CBSE.
The CPIO submitted that the appellant is at liberty to file a complaint against any irregularity if happening in the management of the school. However, in so far as the information sought is concerned, point no.1 is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act and information in respect of point no. 2 is available on the website.
Observations:
Based on close scrutiny of the RTI application, it was noted that in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application, the appellant affirmed during hearing that Shri Bhuneshwar Lal Srivastava (Manager) and Smt. Preeti Srivastava (Principal) are husband and wife and hence the Commission is unable to understand the rationale for seeking information which is already known to him. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that if the appellant's intention was to point out the relationship of the third parties through the RTI route, then this is sheer misuse of the RTI Act 2005. The applicants are duty bound to understand the objective of the RTI Act and not file RTI applications which shall frustrate the very objective of the Act. If he has any grievance relating to the management of the school, he is at liberty to approach the CBSE authorities through the proper channel. The applicants cannot use the RTI Act to seek all and sundry information and file unnecessary and irrelevant applications. It is relevant to mention below the Apex Court observations relating to impractical demands of the appellants in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009 "37. ..........Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national 2 File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2019/110300 development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
In respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application, it was observed that information sought is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Decision:
In view of the above discussions and in the light of the above quoted Apex Court order, the Commission advises the appellant to exercise his right to information in a responsible manner.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3