Central Information Commission
Byravan vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 24 September, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/KVSAN/A/2023/639211
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/KVSAN/C/2023/639214
Byravan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, Chennai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/ complaint:
RTI : 22.06.2023 FA : 23.07.2023 SA/Complaint : Nil
CPIO : 04.07.2023 FAO : 03.08.2023 Hearing : 18.09.2024
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Decision: 23.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) Please provide KV 2 Pondicherry, Pondicherry University Campus admission details for 2023: Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. Name, address, and lot number Page 1 of 4 of students admitted in each category (for Classes 1, 2, and 3), such as central government employee quotas, right to education quotas, and so on.
(ii) Justifications for rejecting merit lottery and wait listed candidates. If you rejected 100 candidates and admitted the 101st, explain why you rejected the first 100 candidates in each category (For 1-3 only)
(iii) I require the identification and permanent and temporary address proofs, such as the Aadhar card and ration card, submitted by candidates selected under the Right to Education quota- RTE (for classes 1-3 only)
(iv) What are the documents to be submitted for getting admission in RTE quota?
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Point (i) - The Admission details are available in the concerned KV Website. Point (ii) & (iii) - Query is not clear and information sought may be specific. Point (iv) - Admission Guidelines are available in the website www.kvsangathan.nic.in"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA's order dated 03.08.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and Complaint dated nil.
5. The appellant/Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. M Vellaichamy, Assistant Commissioner, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 04.07.2023. He further submitted Page 2 of 4 that the query raised by the appellant on points no. 2 & 3 of the RTI application was not covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 04.07.2023. The perusal of records further reveals against point 2 and 3 of the RTI application the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
8. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed. Further, in a complaint case, it is not the case that the respondent has not given any reply to the Complainant and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. Moreover, in the absence of the Appellant/Complainant or any additional objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. With this observation, the complaint is closed.
Page 3 of 4Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 23.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, CPIO, Regional Office Chennai, I. I. T. Campus, Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600036
2. Byravan Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)