Central Information Commission
Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 October, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002493
Date of hearing : Sept 07, 2012
Date of Decision : Oct 01, 2012
Parties:
Applicant/s
Sh. Sanjay Maurya
9817/8, Multani Dhanda
Paharganj,
New Delhi
Respondent
1. PIO,
Dy. Directorate of Education
District: Central / New Delhi
Plot No. 5, Jhandewalan
New Delhi - 110 005
2. Principal
Mehta Vidyalaya, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan
Mehta Sadan, K G Marg
New Delhi - 110 001
Information Commissioner(s) : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
_______________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002493
ORDER
BACKGROUND
1. The Appellant filed the instant Appeal before the Central Information Commission upon being denied information against his RTI application dated 03.08.2011 containing 44 queries about the sectionwise division of students, administration, every functioning, fees structure, names of members of the Committee constituted to decide the matters regarding the students/school etc. The Principal, Mehta Vidyalaya, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan [hereinafter referred to as "the School"] by a letter dated 10.08.2011 refused disclosure of information under provisions of RTI Act 2005 stating that the said School is an unaided recognized private School and is not directly or indirectly funded by the Government. Despite filing a First Appeal dated 23.08.2011, the Applicant failed in procuring any response from the School. Hence, left with no alternative, the Appellant approached this Commission.
2. Upon going through the documents submitted alongwith the Appeal, the Commission found it necessary to seek better facts from the School authorities in order to arrive at a reasoned decision in this case. The notice seeking particulars from the School was thus sent from the Commission on 27.07.2012. The parties viz. the School, the Appellant and also the CPIO, Directorate of Education were simultaneously informed to submit their feedback to explain why and how the School does or does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act 2005 by 05.09.2012 and attend the hearing in the matter scheduled on 07.09.2012.
3. The Commission received the submissions only from the Mehta Vidyalaya, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan explaining why it classified itself as a nonaided/nonfunded private recognized School. The submissions dated 04.09.2012 recorded the various grounds based on which the School contended that they are not a public authority. The arguments of the School are stated in a point wise format while supporting each point with relevant documents.
4. The submissions of the Bhavan's Mehta Vidyalaya demonstrate the consideration paid by the School against its various properties in terms of land and building acquired by the School from time to time. The table below indicates the payments against the plots, area of the land and the year of transaction. The Respondents emphasized the fact that land was bought at existing rates and never at concessional rates.
S. Plot No. Date of Area of land Consideration Purpose
No. allotment
1. Plot No. 1 17.01.1952 1.3 acre Rs. 6,500/ Bhavan's
cultural
activities
2. Plot No. 2 28.10.1974 .54 acre Rs. 2,700/ School
3. Plot No. 4 28.10.1974 . 87 acre Rs. 4,350/ School
4. Plot No. 6,8 & 10 05.06.1976 2.1314 Rs. 15,985/ School's play
acres ground
5. The School authorities further stated that the School is recognized by the Department of
Education, Ministry of Education, GNCT of Delhi and affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. The School submits to be mandated by the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 and the recruitment of their staff and faculty members is governed by the provisions of the Rule 6 of the said Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. The Respondent School has added that the school is run by the Principal and Manager as per provisions of the Rule 59(2) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 relating to the Scheme of Management of recognized schools. Directions given by the School Managing Committee from time to time also play a role in administrative control over daytoday affairs and running of the school.
6. The School quoted that in terms of the Rule 177 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules 1973, income derived by the unaided recognised School by way of tuition fees from the students is utilized for meeting the pay, allowances and other benefits admissible to the employees of the School. In so far as the infrastructure, furniture, equipments etc. of the School are concerned, the Respondent submitted that they are not funded by either the Central or the State Governments or any Government agencies for either the construction of the existing building/s or the funds for infrastructure, furniture and equipments etc. The present School building/s housing the Bhavan's Mehta Vidyalaya is stated to have been constructed by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's own funds on the leased land and the lease rent is being paid annually on a regular basis. The Respondent has submitted that the funds for infrastructure, furniture and equipments are met out of Development fee charged and realized from the students of the School in terms of the orders and guidelines issued from time to time. Thus the Respondents by their submissions established that the School is neither substantially financed nor controlled by any Government.
7. The Respondent has submitted copies of certificate of registration for having registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 as a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of XXI of 1860. The School has submitted documents indicating the constitution of the Delhi Kendra Committee as well as Managing Committee indicating membership, control and management over affairs of the Society and the School. The Scheme of Management of the School annexed with the Respondent School's submissions is as approved by the Directorate of Education as per the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973. Furthermore, the copies of the duly audited Income and Expenditure statements of the School for the years 20092010, 2010 2011 and 20112012 have also been placed on record by the Respondent.
DECISION
8. Despite adequate notice, the Appellant in the instant case has failed to substantiate his case with any justification as to why the School should be declared a Public Authority. It is therefore nowhere disputed that the land upon which the School is located has been acquired by lease in lieu of consideration of market price of the land as prevalent on the date of transaction. No substantial financing could be proved to have been acquired by the School for its administration, payment to staff, infrastructure or on any other counts. The School is under the management and control of its own committee comprised of its appointed members none of whom indicate any Governmental control. Thus on all the aforesaid grounds, the Commission holds that the School cannot be held to be a Public Authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Authenticated true copy: Information Commissioner
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
Sh. Sanjay Maurya
9817/8, Multani Dhanda
Paharganj,
New Delhi
Public Unformation officer
Dy. Directorate of Education
District: Central / New Delhi
Plot No. 5, Jhandewalan
New Delhi - 110 005
Principal
Mehta Vidyalaya, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan
Mehta Sadan,
K G Marg
New Delhi - 110 001