CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001439/4154
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001439
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Shobha Upadhyay
B10/7052, Vasant kunj,
NEW DELHI-110070
Respondent : Ms. Satinder Kaur (PIO)
The Dy.Director Education (SWA),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Department of Education,
C4, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 06/04/2009
PIO replied : 06/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 08/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 25/05/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 08/06/2009
Information sought:
1. Appellant asked for pay slip from April 2008 to March 2009 showing earning and
deduction details, PF and Leave account (including reasons of deduction under AOD).
2. Reasons of deductions under head ‘any other Deduction’ from August 1996 to March
2009, whenever deducted.
The PIO replied:
The required information is not available with this office and the same was called from
concerned school through Education officer, zone-20 of this District on 13.04.2009. A reminder
was issued on 27.04.2009 but the information has not been received so far. The information shall
be given to you shortly.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Not received the information.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“PIO (SW-A) is directed to provide the requested information with in 10 days for free of cost.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Non Compliance of the order of first Appellate Authority
Written submission received from the Appellant before Hearing:
On 2nd July 2009, the PIO stated that she was not the custodian of the information as it was
related to the Deep Public School and the authority of the said school was not providing the
desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Ms. Shobha Upadhyay
Respondent : Ms. Satinder Kaur, PIO
The Appellant has sought information which is normally not with the Public Authority. The PIO
and the FAA have initially responded in different manners displaying their complete ignorance
of the Law. Before the Commission certainly appears to have developed some wisdom and has
claimed that the information relates to a private school which is not a public authority and the
information sought by the Appellant is not held by the public authority hence cannot be
provided. The Appellant contends that under Rule 50 of the Delhi Scholl Education Act and
Rules 1973 all kind of information can be accessed by the department form the school. He is also
relying on Section 2(f) and claims that “information means…….information relating to any
private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being
in force”. The Appellant contends that the information sought by her can be “accessed by the
public authority and obtained from the School.”
The Commission states that this is too wide interpretation of the term accessed under the Law. If
such a wide interpretation under the Law it would mean that information about every shop
keeper who has a sale tax umber would be sought by RTI Applicant’s from the sales tax
authority and so on. This is a very wide interpretation being given by the Appellant and the
Commission does not agree with them. The Commission interprets the word ‘accessed under the
Law’ to means information which the public authority holds as a part of the various returns and
information that institutions that are under its control, have to provide to the public authority.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
The information sought by the Appellant is not held by the Public Authority.
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
16 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(R.K)