Central Information Commission
Pawan Kumar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 21 February, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.CIC/SDMED/A/2017/133273
Shri Pawan Kumar ....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
APIO/Additional Director Education (Admn.)
SDMC ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Through:-Shri Manoj Kumar-Assistant Commissioner,
SDMC
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2019
Date of Decision : 20.02.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.02.2017
PIO replied on : 29.03.2017
First Appeal filed on : 11.04.2017
First Appellate Order on : 09.05.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.05.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2017, seeking the following information regarding unaided Pry. School:
1) certified copy of the rules and regulation for obtaining Recognition by a Primary School,
2) Minimum period of leasehold rights over premises for a school to obtain recognition, where the school is running from leased premises,
3) area in yards/meters necessary for a school to get recognition,
4) minimum number of rooms and area necessary within the premises, for a school to obtain recognition,
5) number of students and classes mandatory for a school to obtain recognition,
6) schools from Najafgarh area which obtained recognition in the year 2015-16 and 2016-17,
7) applications received from schools during the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 for obtaining recognition alongwith relevant supporting documents,
8) Inspection reports prepared for granting recognition to all the applicant schools during the year 2015-16 and 2016-17.
CPIO/Education vide letter dated 29.03.2017 replied to the point-wise queries. In response to the queries 7 and 8, the PIO denied information citing earlier decisions of the CIC in case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001388/4121 which was decided on 14.07.2009, holding that "unaided public schools do not come under the purview of RTI Act".
Being dissatisfied with the information so received, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 11.04.2017. FFA/SDMC vide order dated 09.05.2017 upheld the PIO's decision.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant was represented by Shri Karamvir Singh and Respondent was represented by Shri Manoj Kumar-Assistant Commissioner, SDMC.
The Appellant's representative submitted that he had received information against all other queries, except on points 7 and 8.
The Respondent justified denial of information against queries 7 and 8, citing the Commission's decision in case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001388/4121 which was decided on 14.07.2009, holding that "unaided public schools do not come under the purview of RTI Act". The Respondent was informed that the position in law about applicability of the RTI Act on private unaided schools stands modified today inasmuch as the private schools have been brought within the purview of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon hearing averments of the parties, the position so emerges that the focal point of the Appellant in the instant appeal remain the queries number 7 and 8. The queries number 7 and 8 of the RTI Application dated 20.02.2017 are as follows:
"......7) applications alongwith relevant supporting documentsreceived from primary schools in Najafgarh area, for obtaining recognition,during the year 2015-16 and 2016-17;
8) Inspection reports prepared by Education officials, including all relevant supporting documents and comments of the officials on the reports for granting recognition to all the applicant schools during the year 2015-16 and 2016-17."
Examination of facts of the case reveals that the Respondent's stance of denial of information by citing the aforesaid decision of the Commission in case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001388/4121 decided on 14.07.2009, is completely unsustainable in law as the facts of both cases are completely distinguishable. Secondly, the denial of information is legally flawed because judgments of this Commission as well as the Delhi High Court have from time to time held that private unaided schools are open to scrutiny by the Delhi Government, though not always the general public. Thus, complete denial of information pertaining to private unaided schools is an incorrect interpretation of the RTI Act and hence the CPIO and FAA's orders are hereby set aside.
Dealing with the queries number 7 and 8, the Commission notes that the information sought pertains to all primary schools of Najafgarh area which had sought recognition from the public authority during the year 2015-16 and 2016-17, their applications supporting documents, inspection reports etc. While information about the number of such primary schools cannot be denied from disclosure to the Appellant, documents supporting the applications and the inspection reports sought by the Appellant relate to information relating to commercial confidence of each such school, disclosure whereof could harm competitive position of the School and hence cannot be provided to the Appellant.
The PIO is therefore directed to furnish information about the number of primary schools from Najafgarh area which had sought recognition during the years 2015-16 and 2016-17. This information shall be supplied within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The PIO is cautioned to be careful in future while dealing with RTI cases and place reliance on decisions only after checking the current legal position. The Commission further recommends that RTI workshops may be conducted for upgradation of knowledge of the officials and staff handling RTI related matters.
The instant appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover Dy. Registrar 011-26180514/ राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर,उप-पंजीयक