CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001329/8254
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001329
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Shailender Bhardwaj
256-257, Doonger Mohalla,
Fargh Bazar, Delhi-32.
Respondent : Ms. Seema Sharma
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Education Officer
Education Department
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahdara (South Zone), Delhi
RTI application filed on : 14/01/2010
PIO replied : 03/02/2010
First appeal filed on : 16/03/2010
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 21/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 20/05/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information in the form of attested photocopy of annual examination result
for Class I to Class V for the last three academic years (2006-2009) from Nutan Vidya Mandir School,
Raghubirpura, No.-02, Gali No-9, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
Reply of Public Information Officer (PIO):
The information could not be provided on two grounds:
a) School was unaided private school and not a “public authority” under the meaning given under
RTI Act.
b) Information sought was voluminous and could not be provided as per the order of CIC in Case
file No. 26/IC (A)/06/FCIC/MA(e)/2006/0008 dated 07/04/2006 in the case of Kishore J
Aggarwal v/s Syndicate Bank.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete reply provided by the PIO. Also the reply was sent to a wrong address as could be
ascertained from letter dated 05/02/2010
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
APIO had been directed to provide information to the Appellant within 15 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Appellant had been rebuked and misbehaved with by the school authorities on day of inspection.
Further, no information had been provided to him on issues under consideration in this appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Shailender Bhardwaj;
Respondent : Ms. Seema Sharma, Public Information Officer & Assistant Education Officer;
The PIO has not provided information because she states that this information is not with her.
She states that it might be with the Head Quarter who gives recognition to the Schools. Since the
school appears to be a private unaided school the RTI application cannot be transferred to them.
However, as the recognizing authority information which is the school is oblige to provide to the public
authority must be given to the appellants. The PIO is directed to obtain the information from Head
Quarter and provide it to the appellant. However, if any of the information is not required to be
submitted by the School under the law the appellant will be suitably informed.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the appellant
before 10 July 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
23 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)