Central Information Commission
S Srinivas Shankaraiah vs Department Of School Education & ... on 15 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DSELI/C/2024/651179
S Srinivas Shankaraiah ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of School Education & Literacy,
PM Poshan, Room No. 210-C,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.01.2026
Date of Decision : 14.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.09.2024
CPIO replied on : N.A.
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2024 seeking the following information:
"1:- in schools colleges universities and etc all education institutions from joining to pass out of a student collecting charges list and its mandatary rules to it provide.Page 1 of 7
2:- during course study collected course fees rti reasons to collect certificates charges from students details provide. 3:- it's not duty to education institutions in India to provide pass certificates free of cost to students details provide.
B:- with reasons to do practise this and ministry steps taken or going to take in this issue provide details. (A newspaper clip of Telangana University enclosed herewith) 4:- in a university hostel students luggage lost during course study by employees of hostel not justified and no compensation paid for loss ministry of education steps in this regard provide.
B:- rules regulations procedure mandatory maded by ministry to student grievance cells works duties function's time period to resolve provide. 5:-in a newspaper publication said that shatavahana university registrar vice chancellor was did something corruptive practices by student organisation your action on them provide. Press copy enclosed B:-in a newspaper publication said that the student organisation filed complaint to chancellor of Telangana state universities as per law mandatory works of chancellor provide.
C:- chancellor/vice chancellor/registrar/principal not heard grievance of students purpose to appoint of them and give salaries to them and my govt clear instructions to all over India passed such details provide. 6:- university registrar got complaint from student mandatoary rules by education ministry to resolve such grievance by registrar if no action taken on that by registrar ministry action details provide pending before Telangana University vidyavardhini got. ((later this university some employees booked under vigilance case)) B:- from last 7years no certificate giving demanding fees but bills to such fees not explained not showed by a university even Telangana Universitys chancellor l.e governor got complaints not resolved in Telangana state ministry action on same provide details 2021to 2024. 7:-in Telangana state all university wise rti 4(1)b, rti I ii records with commission orders provide with they fallowing rules regulations codes bylaws mannuals acts from their recruitment to retire death pensions with its all benificiary list provide in2005to 2024.Page 2 of 7
B:- all university in Telangana state collecting all all fees from joining to passout provide. including hostel fees and facilities to students providing year wise also be provide.
C:- in all university wise and their recognised colleges wise fees reimbursement scholorship beneficiaries list provide in 2005 to 2024 in their university college wise records provide sc st bc mbc ebc minority etc wise. D:- 2012 Osmania university MSc bio technology seats filluped and ranks got students list provide With called rank cards also E:- all university wise seats courses details provide with rules of reservation to all seats provide.
8:-in Telangana state steps by ministry to merge some universities and reduce staff and curruptionists sake taken steps under new education policy provide.
B:- India's new education policy book provide.
C:- UGC and ts higher education council Hyderabad doing all works and doing service to students and student welfare and grievance resolved pending report list provide in 2005 to 2024 with its rti 4 1 b rti I ii records with commission orders provide.
D:- Telangana state fees regulations committee reports on all fees to all course wise provide in 2005to 2024 with its rti 4(1) b and rti I ii records with commission orders provide in same period.
E:- any other information records you had and under rti disclosed to public in 2005to2024 also be send.
9:- now a days education become a business so my govt steps to prohibit such education business or already steps taken provide."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, Complainant directly filed the instant Complaint before the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha, US & CPIO along with Shri Sanjay Kumar, US & CPIO and Shri Jashi Minz, SO, all present in persons.
3. Complainant was absent during hearing despite service.
Page 3 of 74. A written submission dated 23.12.2025 filed by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Under Secretary, DOSEL is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ease of reference:
"lnformation regarding concerns about the collection of various fees from students and corruption and maladministration by Telangana's various university authorities such as Vice Chancellors and Registrars and other information."
3. Reply of CPIO (U.ll) Dated 27.09.2024 "The information asked by you is not maintained in U-ll Section and therefore no information on your RTI Application is available in the records of U-ll Section. The information asked by you not relates. The said information pertains to Higher Education Department Govt. of Telangana. Therefore, the requisite information may kindly be obtained from concerned PlO, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Telangana in view of DoPT OM No. 10/2/2008- lR dated 12th June, 2008."
4. Relevant documents are attached herewith."
5. Further, a written submission dated 20.12.2025 filed by Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha, US, DOSEL, Ministry of Education is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ease of reference:
"2. It may kindly noted that Shri S. Srinivas Shankaraiah vide online RTI Registration No. DOHED/R/E/24/06549 dated 19.09.2024 has asked information comprising 9 main questions with 22 sub-parts addressed to CPIO Ministry of Education. The RTI Cell of Ministry of Education forward to various authorities, including CPIO (PN-II) and CPIO (U.II/UT-HE) of Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and the University Grants Commission (UGC). (Copy enclosed).
3. Further, the then CPIO & Under Secretary of Policy Norms-II (PN-II) after going through the queries, it was observed the only Point No. 8 (B) of the said RTIi.e., "India's New Education Policy Book provide, was pertained to PN-II Section, Department of Higher Education, MoE.
4. Accordingly, the then CPIO (PN-II) furnished a reply within the prescribed time limit vide letter No. 7-108/2024-PN-II dated 08.10.2024 was also uploaded on RTI Portal, informing the applicant that the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is available in the public domain, Page 4 of 7 and the relevant official website link of the Ministry of Education was also provided. The reply specifically directed the applicant to the publicly accessible URL hosting the NEP 2020 document. (Copy enclosed). No further information is available with this CPIO.
5. It is further submitted that the remaining points of the RTI application did not pertain to the work associated with CPIO (PN-II) and may pertain to other authorities to whom the RTI application was already addressed.
6. It is also relevant to mention that in this matter no First Appeal was filed by the applicant against the reply furnished by the CPIO (PN-II)."
6. Shri Sanjay Kumar, US & CPIO, DoSEL placed reliance on his written submitted and explained that the Complainant has sought information regarding fees charged by various Universities of Telangana States with the allegations of corruption and maladministration of Telangana's various Universities. It was replied to the Complainant vide letter dated 27.09.2024 that such records are not held by the DoSEL and the Complainant was advised to contact/approached concerned PIO of Higher Education Department, Government of Telangana to gather the requisite information.
7. Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha, US, DOSEL, Ministry of Education also invited attention of the Bench towards the contents of his above mentioned written submission and clarified that although the queries raised by the Complainant in the RTI application are vague and unspecific, yet, CPIO as per his wisdom interpret the queries of applicant in the simple form and facilitate the requested information in the form of replies to the Complainant through online RTI portal on 08.10.2024. No additional information is available in their office. CPIO further apprised the Bench that Complainant has not exhausted the channel of filing the first Appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant matter.
8. On being queried by the Bench, replying CPIOs' affirmed that a copy of averred written submission has already been served to the Complainant. Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that this case is a Complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. Page 5 of 7 State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864 wherein it was held as under:-
"...Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.
This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden..."
10. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon close scrutiny of records, it is noted by the Commission that the queries raised by the Complainant in the RTI application are unspecific and indeterminate which do not strictly falls under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Despite this, the CPIO has made sincere efforts to provide timely response to the Complainant on 27.09.2024 and 08.10.2024. In addition to it, the steps taken by the present CPIO in liasioning the matter and forwarding the RTI application to the concerned CPIO is appreciable.
11. Further, the Commission noted with concern that the Complainant has not filed any first appeal in the matter and reasons for the same could not be ascertained as he was not present before the Commission despite notice. The Complainant neither filed any written objections nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the Respondents and agitate the matter.
12. There is no mala fide denial of information or otherwise is found on the part of CPIO in the instant case which calls for any action under Section 20 of Page 6 of 7 the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 wherein it was held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
13. In the light of above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri S Srinivas Shankaraiah Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)