CIC: Even if PIO’s claim of APS, Ramgarh not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the RTI Application is being responded by a public authority and not by APS, Ramgarh; Explaination for non-appearance during the hearing called
11 Jun, 2018Complainant sought information regarding her service tenure as primary teacher at APS, Ramgarh - CIC: Even if PIO’s claim of APS, Ramgarh not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the Complainant’s RTI Application is being responded by a public authority and not by APS, Ramgarh - CIC: It was incumbent on Respondent No.1 to provide such information which is available with him or which he can access from APS, Ramgarh - CIC: Respondent no 1 to send his explanation for non-appearance during the hearing
Information sought:
The Complainant sought information through 8 points and various sub-points regarding her service tenure as primary teacher at APS, Ramgarh.
Grounds for the Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent (1): Not present.
Respondent (2): Not present.
Complainant stated that she has not received the desired information from the Respondent. She further contended that Respondent No.1’s claim that APS, Ramgarh does not fall under the ambit of RTI Act is not relevant to her case as she sought the information from the Chairman of the School, who is a serving Army officer.
Decision
Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that RTI Application was filed with the Chairman/PIO, APS Ramgarh, however neither the PIO nor any representative from Respondent No.1’s office appeared during the hearing to explain as to how reply on the RTI Application is being provided from the office of The Sikh Regimental Centre, which is a public authority.
As far as the status of APS, Ramgarh is concerned, as it comes under the aegis of AWES, it may be noted that Commission relies on its decision in File No: CIC/RM/A/2014/004431 dated 08.09.2016 wherein the following was observed:
“....The case file was sent to the competent authority for constitution of a Division bench, to decide the issue, i.e. whether Army Welfare Education Society is a public authority or not.
The Information Commissioner, Shri Basant Seth has given his considered opinion on the case as under:
“Regarding Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) The Commission in its earlier order dated 06.10.2009 (File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/000634) –Smt Amba Joshi vs. AWES) has held that AWES is not a public authority. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in its decision dated 20.02.2009 (CWP No. 6834 of 1996-Sudha Soin Vs. Union of India and others) while holding AWES is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has observed as under:
“On consideration of regulations extracted herein above, it follows that the State has no control, much less deep and pervasive control, over the respondent school or society governing it. Financial assistance is not given by the Government, rather school is maintained by the interest on corpus grant, tuition fees, other fees, donations and sundry interests. It is a financially self supporting institution...........”
Similar findings have been returned by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 20/07/2015 (WP No. 5819 of 2015-Shivali Dhillon Vs Managing Director Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) and ors.). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 07/10/2013 in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. And others V/S State of Kerala and others (Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013) has held as under:-
“40. The burden to show that a body is owned controlled or substantially financed or that a non- government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information..............................”
In the instant matter the Complainant has not given any proper justification to show that AWES falls within the scope within the scope of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Hence, there is no point of law to be decided by a division bench or reason to differ with the view taken earlier by a Coordinate bench of this Commission. ”
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the instant case, the reply on the RTI Application has been provided by a public authority, in which case, it is not appropriate for Respondent No.2 to cite the status of APS Ramgarh. Commission accedes to the contention of the Complainant that it is not relevant to the facts of the case as to whether APS, Ramgrah comes under the ambit of RTI Act or not. It is rather relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; and 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:
Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; - “....“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—...........”
Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; - “....“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force...”
Upon a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Complainant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasised therefore that even if PIO’s claim of APS, Ramgarh not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the Complainant’s RTI Application is being responded by a public authority and not by APS, Ramgarh, therefore the contention of the PIO that APS, Ramgarh is not a public authority will not apply to the merits of this case. It was incumbent on Respondent No.1 to provide such information which is available with him or which he can access from APS, Ramgarh.
Commission warns Respondent No.1 to remain careful while dealing with matters under RTI Act.
The other aspect of the case is the nature of the RTI Application, which Commission has observed to be largely outside the purview of the definition of ‘information’ under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act. Complainant has sought for clarifications and has framed the RTI Application in an extremely cumbersome manner.
Commission takes grave exception to the absence of Respondent No.1 during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to send to the Commission his explanation for non-appearance during the hearing within 15 days from date of receipt of this order. With these observations, the Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Priyanka Jaiswal v. The Sikh Regimental Centre in File No. CIC/IARMY/C/2017/130835/SD, Date of Decision: 02/05/2018