{"id":38219,"date":"2010-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-02T11:11:34","modified_gmt":"2016-02-02T05:41:34","slug":"mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 26 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 26 November, 2010<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                             Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                           Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002555\/10173\n                                                                   Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002555\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                             :     Mr. Kul Bhushan Dania,\n                                            18-LF, Tansen Marg,\n                                            Near Bengali Market,\n                                            New Delhi- 110001\n\nRespondent                            :     Ms. Usha Kumari,\n                                            PIO & DDE (E),\n                                            O\/o Deputy Director of Education,\n                                            Directorate of Education, GNCTD,\n                                            District East, Anand Vihar,\n                                            Delhi- 110092\n\nRTI application filed on              :     17\/07\/2010\nPIO replied on                        :     27\/07\/2010 and 01\/09\/2010 (After FAA's order)\nFirst Appeal filed on                 :     30\/07\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order of    :     27\/08\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on             :     10\/09\/2010\nDate of Notice of Hearing             :     27\/09\/2010\nHearing Held on                       :     26\/10\/2010\n\n<\/pre>\n
The children of the Appellant namely, Vineet Dania and Swaril Dania were studying in Class XI of
\nMother Teresa Public School, Preet Vihar, New Delhi- 110092 (the “School”). The Principal of the
\nSchool had taken an arbitrary decision to provide a stream other than Science to the Appellant’s children
\nwithout the consent of the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Information sought:\n<\/p>\n
The Principal of the School to provide copy of the set of records duly authenticated by the Principal
\npertaining to the arbitrary decision of providing streams other than Science without the consent and
\nknowledge of the Appellant with the basis of the relevant rules\/ regulations of the School\/Directorate of
\nEducation, GNCTD.\n<\/p>\n
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):\n<\/p>\n
The required information cannot be obtained from a private recognized school under the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n
The FAA observed that complete information was not provided to the Appellant. The PIO & DDE (E)
\nwas directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant within seven days specifying the reasons and
\nprovisions for denial of information under the RTI Act. The Appeal was disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                             Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Further to the order of the FAA, the PIO & DDE (B), by letter dated 01\/09\/2010, informed the Appellant
\nthat the information sought was non- existent as was evident from the status report of the complaint of the
\nAppellant on the said matter. As per the said status report signed by the Superintendent, O\/o DDE (E), a
\ncomplaint was filed by the Appellant against the School wherein it was alleged that the Principal of the
\nSchool had provided subject stream other than Science to the children of the Appellant without the
\nconsent of the Appellant who was their lawful guardian. A meeting was called at the office of DDE (E)
\nwherein the Principal, the Appellant and both the children were present. On investigation it was revealed
\nthat there was a dispute between the Appellant and his wife. The children stated that they had chosen the
\nsubjects as per their interests and potential and had not been forced either by the Principal or their mother.
\nThe mother of the children stated that she was the custodian of the children as per the order of the High
\nCourt and that the children had chosen the subjects with their interest and her consent. Since there was no
\nsubstance in the complaint filed by the Appellant, the matter was closed under the Delhi School Education
\nAct, 1973 (the “DSEA”).\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Dissatisfied with the information provided by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts that emerged during the hearing held on October 26, 2010:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Kul Bhushan Dania;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Ms. Usha Kumari, PIO & DDE (E);\n<\/p>\n
        “The Appellant has sought information about the actions of a private unaided school. The PIO
\nstated that since the School was a private unaided school, it was not a public authority and hence the RTI
\napplication could not be transferred to it. The Appellant claimed that the department can access the
\ninformation sought from the School and therefore the department must obtain the information and provide
\nit to him. In this regard, the Appellant quoted Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and claimed that the information
\ncame within the category of “information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public
\nauthority under any other law for the time being in force”. The Appellant also relied on four decisions
\ngiven by the Commission namely, CIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/00618 dated 22\/08\/2006, CIC\/MA\/A\/2008\/01068 and
\n01069 dated 26\/09\/2008, CIC\/MA\/A\/2008\/01117 dated 14\/07\/2010 and CIC\/MA\/A\/2007\/00867 dated
\n22\/01\/2008. The Appellant also drew the attention of the Commission to Para (II) of the Appeal in support
\nof his contention.”\n<\/p>\n
The decision was reserved during the hearing held on October 26, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
Decision announced on 26 November 2010:\n<\/p>\n
      The Commission perused the four decisions submitted by the Appellant. The decisions of the
\nCommission in S. C. Mazumder v. Survey of India, Kolkata CIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/00618 dated 22\/08\/2006 and
\nMohd. Sultan Khan v. Dept. of Posts CIC\/MA\/A\/2007\/00867 dated 22\/01\/2008 were irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
In Lalit Mohan Gupta v. Directorate of Education, GNCTD CIC\/MA\/A\/2008\/01068<\/a> + 01069, the
\ninformation sought pertained to an unaided senior secondary school and was denied by the PIO on the
\nbasis that the said school was not a public authority under the RTI Act. Professor M. M. Ansari,
\nInformation Commissioner, by his decision dated 26\/09\/2008, held that all educational institutions
\nespecially those which have obtained land from the government at subsidized rates enjoyed recognition by
\nthe government, followed the guidelines for offer of various educational programmes and enjoyed
\naffiliation to bodies such as CBSE, were necessarily performing a public function. Therefore, such
\ninstitutions should be covered under the RTI Act to ensure transparency and accountability in their
\nfunctioning. Therefore, the PIO was directed to seek assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from
\nthe Principal\/ Deemed PIO of the concerned school and provide the information to the applicant. In other
\nwords, whether a body is performing a public function directed at serving the larger public good, has been
\n                                                                                               Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n used as a factor to determine whether the concerned school was a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of
\nthe RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines the term “public authority” as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “”public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self government
\n       established or constituted,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) by or under the Constitution;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) by any other law made by Parliament;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c) by any other law made by State Legislature;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,
\n       and includes any-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (i)         body owned, controlled or substantially financed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,
\n       directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;”<\/p>\n
On a plain reading of the definition of “public authority” given above, it appears that whether a body is
\nperforming a public function or not is not a factor to determine whether such body is a public authority.
\nThe Commission cannot read in ‘public function’ as a criterion to determine whether a body is a public
\nauthority or not when ‘public function’ has not been expressly mentioned in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
\nTherefore, with due respect to the observations of Professor M. M. Ansari, Information Commissioner,
\nthis Commission differs from his observation inasmuch as whether a body performs a public function is
\nnot a criterion to decide whether it is a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In fact, there
\nare several institutions which perform public functions such as imparting technical guidance or providing
\nmedical facilities, but they do not come within the ambit of the RTI Act as they are not public authorities.
\nTherefore, merely by performing a public function of imparting education, an unaided or private school
\ncannot be considered a “public authority”. The term “public authority” has been specifically mentioned
\nand defined under the RTI Act, hence this Commission has to be guided by the definition provided under
\nthe RTI Act only. However, if it can be established that a private or unaided school is owned or controlled
\nor has received substantial finance from the appropriate government, it would be a “public authority” as
\ndefined in the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant has also submitted a copy of the Commission’s decision in Bindu Khanna v. Directorate of
\nEducation, GNCTD CIC\/MA\/A\/2008\/01117<\/a> dated 14\/07\/2010. The issue for determination in the said
\ncase was whether a private school (the third party) can refuse to furnish information under Section 8(1)(j)
\nof the RTI Act. On a combined reading of Sections 2(f), 2(j) and 2(n) of the RTI Act, a bench comprising
\nof three Information Commissioners held that information which a public authority was entitled to access
\nunder any law from a private body was “information” as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and was
\nrequired to be furnished. It must however be clarified that in the Bindu Khanna decision, there was no
\nruling whatsoever as to whether a private or unaided school was a public authority under Section 2(h) of
\nthe RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Further, the Appellant has relied on Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which stipulates that the term
\n“information” brings within its ambit “information relating to any private body which can be accessed by
\na public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. It is the contention of the Appellant
\nthat a public authority, which has control over a private body by virtue of any law for the time being in
\nforce, can access any information pertaining to that private body. In other words, the DDE, which
\nexercised control over the School in accordance with the DSEA, could access any information pertaining
\nto the School including various policy decisions and furnish the same to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Theoretically, a public authority may be able to access any information relating to a private body over
\nwhich it exercises regulatory control, while carrying out an inspection\/ investigation. However, Section
\n                                                                                                  Page 3 of 4<\/span>
\n 2(f) of the RTI Act does not envisage the same. “Information”, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
\nAct, brings within its purview only that information which has been furnished by a private body to a
\npublic authority, or which can be accessed by a public authority, in accordance with what is specifically
\nprescribed in law. The law which establishes regulatory control of a public authority over a private body
\nusually lays down the various reports, returns, compliance documents, etc which the latter is required to
\nfurnish to the former. This typically includes information relating to the management and regulation of the
\nprivate body and is required to be furnished to the public authority for ensuring proper functioning of the
\nprivate body by the public authority. Only such information comes within the ambit of “information
\nrelating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time
\nbeing in force” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
For instance, under the Companies Act, 1956 both public and private companies are required to be
\nregistered with the Registrar of Companies (the “ROC”). The ROC exercises various powers over
\ncompanies and such companies are required to furnish various details, reports, etc to the ROC from time
\nto time as prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956. If the contention of the Appellant was to be
\naccepted, then the ROC can access any information pertaining to all the companies registered with it,
\nincluding private companies and provide the same to the RTI applicant. This would tantamount to giving
\nan extremely broad interpretation to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which does not appear to be the intent of
\nthe legislators. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant is not accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Further, it appears that in the instant case, the information as available on record has already been
\nprovided to the Appellant by the PIO vide letter dated 01\/09\/2010 after the order of the FAA.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal is disposed.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                       Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                              26 November 2010
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RLM)<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                      Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 26 November, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002555\/10173 Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002555 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Kul Bhushan Dania, 18-LF, Tansen Marg, Near Bengali […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-02T05:41:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 26 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-02T05:41:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1923,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-02T05:41:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 26 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-02T05:41:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 26 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-02T05:41:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010"},"wordCount":1923,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010","name":"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, ... on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-02T05:41:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-kulbhushan-dania-vs-directorate-of-education-gnct-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Kulbhushan Dania vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, … on 26 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}