2011-09-24
NEW DELHI: Delhi high court on Friday decided to examine if the private unaided schools in the capital fall under the RTI Act and can be termed a "public authority" . Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw admitted a petition filed by one of the Delhi Public Schools challenging a Central Information Commission ruling that such schools are "public authority" as defined by the RTI Act and stayed the CIC order. HC also made 'Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh' - an association of parents - a party to the case and asked all stakeholders , including the education directorate, to respond to the petition filed by DPS Rohini through its Principal Rita Sen. Appearing for the school, advocate Punit Mittal argued the school is neither directly nor indirectly funded by the government. He also opposed CIC's conclusion that land was allotted to the school in 1997 at a concessional rate and said the CIC ruling is bad in law. After taking into account the arguments , HC has now posted the case for December. Earlier this year, the CIC had declared DPS comes under the ambit of RTI Act as it received substantial funding from the government in the form of subsidized land. The transparency panel said Delhi Public School, Rohini, is a public authority within the ambit of the RTI Act as it is controlled by different agencies under the Delhi administration like DDA and Directorate of Education. The case relates to an RTI applicant Mohit Goel who sought information from DPS, Rohini, on admission procedures and admissions made under the policy framework specified by the Department of Education for 2010-11 for preschool. The school refused to give any information saying the RTI Act is not applicable on it as it is a private unaided organization and also cited clause of exemption of personal and private information. Before the Commission, Goel challenged the reasons put forth by the school saying over 10,000sqm of land has been allotted to the school by DDA at a nominal rent of Rs 10 per annum.(TOI)
--- On Fri, 9/9/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Private schools may now come under RTI Act
To: "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Friday, 9 September, 2011, 5:37 PM
Private schools may now come under RTI ActManash Pratim Gohain, TNN Sep 7, 2011, 06.17am IST NEW DELHI: Private schools may no longer be able to refuse to provide information under the RTI Act under the pretext of being a 'private authority'. The Central Information Commission (CIC), in a recent hearing against a private school, ruled that the school, which receives substantial funds from the government and was controlled by different agencies under the Delhi administration, including the DDA and the Directorate of Education, comes under the ambit of the RTI Act and can be called a 'public authority'. This ruling was announced on August 24, during the hearing of an appeal filed by RTI activist Mohit Goel of Model Town who was denied information by Delhi Public School, Rohini. In her order Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit said: "This commission holds that DPS Rohini fulfils the essential elements of being a private-aided school which is substantially financed by the government and controlled by different agencies under the Delhi Administration. It is therefore, covered by the regime of the RTI Act and can be called a 'Public Authority'. The Commission therefore directs the principal of DPS Rohini to designate an official in the school as the PIO at the earliest... The information sought by the complainant may be provided to him ... He may also be allowed to inspect records and be provided with copies of documents required by him..." 
--- On Sun, 4/9/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 4 September, 2011, 3:04 PM
More information on CIC is not Court etc.
SPEED POST Shri Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information Commission, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067. Date: 4.9.2011. Sub: Outright rejection of my application for taking action against the PIO, NSD, AIR for submitting false affidavits before Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner in the hearing of my complaint. Ref: Case No. CIC/AD/A/2010/000144. Hon'ble Sir, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commissioner has rejected my application for making a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction out rightly stating that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence. The application was submitted to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC for the perjury committed by Shri D. K. Das, the CPIO by submitting false evidence in the form of three false affidavits. In his affidavits, the CPIO swore on oath that the documents / file has lost and therefore the supporting documents declaring that my bonafides are doubtful and such a person cannot be kept in service cannot provided. Subsequent inquiry by the Department on the order of the CIC revealed that no such file was ever created. When the file was not ever created, there was no question of its loss. I am enclosing herewith self-attested copies of my application for initiating perjury proceedings dated 3.5.2011 and the IC's decision dated 25th August, 2011 rejecting my request for your ready reference. Under section 340 of the CrPC, I cannot make direct complaint and the duty is cast upon on the Information Commissioner since Presiding Officer of the Court includes CIC also as it has jurisdiction of a civil court. This fact was also mentioned in my application to Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner. It is also covered in the definition Moreover, it has power to record evidence and to come to a judicial determination on the evidence so recorded. (See para 2 under head Court on page 522). The CIC is vested with such powers u.s. 195 (3) of the CrPC and under some other laws which I am not mentioning here but, if desired, will inform about this. 2. The application has been rejected stating, "Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence". According to section 340 CrPC, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to make a complaint as regards an abetment of any offence referred to in s. 195(1)(b). [please see enclosed page 522 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (15th Edition, 1997) by Justice Y V Chandrachud, former CJ, SC]. Under section 18 (3) of RTI Act, CIC has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure while receiving evidence on affidavit. Para 2 of the CrPC, (page 522) states, "Any Civil Court can proceed under this section and hold preliminary inquiry". It should then record a finding, should itself make a complaint in writing and forward it to the first class Magistrate having jurisdiction. Last two lines of para 3 on page 523 state, "An affidavit which is false is also covered in this section." I am enclosing copies of page 521 to 523 for your ready reference. 3. That the reason recorded in the decision itself is an error of law and fact and the Commission itself was not required to deal with the criminal jurisprudence but to make a complaint in writing to the First Class Magistrate after recording finding and send it to the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in accordance with the Section 340 of CrPC. 4. That non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits or other false evidences will pave the way of submitting the false evidences as both the parties will not have any fear of action against them. 5. Thus, the Hon'ble IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has given erroneous decision by turning down my application to take action u.s. 340 of the CrPC. I, therefore, request you to reconsider the decision and to make a complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury committed by the CPIO so that the same is not repeated in future.
Yours faithfully,
M K Gupta
--- On Sun, 4/9/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 4 September, 2011, 8:14 AM
Dear Guptaji CIC is NOT a Civil Court. During Complaint process u/s 18 the CIC enjoys some limited POWERS of a civil court under CPC for receiving evidence. Your real remedy for false evidence submitted on affidavit lies under Indian Penal Code and not CPC. The Superior courts are littered with false affidavits submitted by civil servents on behalf of their department. No court takes any cognisance of the "perjury" they contain. It is all part of the game, unless the untruths are palpably outrgeous / beyond all limits to lying. Sarbajit On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 11:08 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: As stated, sharing as copy of my proposed letter to Hon'ble CCIC, Shri Satyananda Mishra,
SPEED POST Shri Satyananada Mishra, Chief Information Commission New Delhi. Date: 3.9.2011. Sub: Outright rejection of my application for taking action against the PIO, NSD, AIR for submitting false affidavits before Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner in the hearing of my complaint. Ref: Case No. CIC/AD/A/2010/000144. Hon'ble Sir, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commissioner has rejected my application for making a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction out rightly stating that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence. The application was submitted to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC for the perjury committed by Shri D. K. Das, the CPIO by submitting false evidence in the form of three false affidavits. I am enclosing herewith a self-attested copies of my application dated 3.5.2011 and the IC's decision dated 25th August, 2011 rejecting my request for your ready reference. 2. The application has been rejected stating, "Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence". According to section 340 CrPC, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to make a complaint as regards an abetment of any offence referred to in s. 195(1)(b). [please see enclosed page 522 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (15th Edition, 1997) by Justice Y V Chandrachud, former CJ, SC]. Under section 18 (3) of RTI Act, CIC has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure while receiving evidence on affidavit. Para 2 of the CrPC, (page 522) states, "Any Civil Court can proceed under this section and hold preliminary inquiry". It should than record a finding, should itself make a complaint in writing and forward it to the first class Magistrate having jurisdiction. Last two lines of para 3 on page 523 state, "An affidavit which is false is also covered in this section." I am enclosing copies of page 521 to 523 for your ready reference. 3. That the reason recorded in the decision itself is an error of law and fact and the Commission itself was not required to deal with the criminal jurisprudence but to make a complaint in writing to the First Class Magistrate after recording finding and send it to the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in accordance with the Section 340 of CrPC. 4. That non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits or other false evidences will open the floodgates of submitting the false evidences by the PIO's etc. as they will not have any fear of any action against them. 5. Thus, the Hon'ble IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has given erroneous decision by turning down my application to take action u.s. 340 of the CrPC. I, therefore, request you to revisit the decision and to make a complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury committed by the CPIO so that the same is not repeated in future. (Mahendra Kumar Gupta) Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 3 September, 2011, 3:15 PM | We are grateful to Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commission for her well reasoned, speaking and logical order of far reaching consequences.
Mohit Goyal also deserves Kudos for doing his home work well and citing around ten cases in support of his demand. During the hearing, I noted that the IC has given the desired time and heard both the parties with ample patience and gave fair opportunity to plead.
This does not mean that all the decisions of IC, Mrs. Dixit's are of the satisfaction of the appellants. If the appellants are not challenging these decisions in the High Court that is due to long, cumbersome and expensive route. For an ordinary man, it is difficult to take recourse of this.
I have list of some questionable decisions passed by the IC, Mrs. Dixit. In the latest decision in the case No. CIC/AD/C/2010/000144, IC refused to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC to the Ist class magistrate against the perjury committed by Shri D K Das, PIO, NSD, AIR by submitting three false affidavits before her during the hearings. Non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits will open the floodgate of submitting the false evidences by the PIO's and other govt. officials as they will not have fear of any for the same. I shall share copy of my proposed letter to Shri Satyanand Mishra, Chief IC in the case by tomorrow. Thus, every IC has some good and some sulking decisions in his/her kitty. I propose that we should have a penal of some public spirited lawyers ready to take up such cases on a reasonable fee.
--- On Sat, 3/9/11, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, 3 September, 2011, 1:29 PM
Dear Mohit Your post confirms that IC(SG) is completely arbitrary in his orders. He finds Queen Mary School (minority school) not to be a PA in a 1 page order but holds Guru Harkishan School (equally minority) to be PA in a 10 page order similar to yours. This shows what is an open secret - that CIC decisions are nor written by the concerned ICs. <wink>. Sarbajit On Sep 3, 10:12 am, Mohit Goel < mr_moh...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Mr Sarbajit/Mr Gupta > > what i can read out from my interaction with IC (SG) regarding schools is that he adamant not to allow RTI in private schools... even to the extent that he can ignore vital facts of cases. As did in my case.. on seeing a strong fundamental arguments along with high court decisions he could not have any way out on the matter so case was adjourned indefinitely. Thankfully Chief IC allowed for transfer of case when i complained. In another case of mine reg section 2(f) applicability on school IC SG changed the definition of this clause to again ensure that parents cant access information from school using section 2(f)... !!!!! > > There is another interesting case of Sh. U. S. Singhal vs Sachedeva Public CIC/SG/C/2009/001451/9027 , where Mr Singhal submitted that land to school was given on concessional rate , income tax benefit etc but all those arguments were set aside and case was heard in favor of school ... interesting judgement for everyone to see... .. i > > Ill suggest that some one should complaint to CIC for review of decisions on Sachedeva School/ Queens Mary schools etc under the light of various High court judgement on section 2(h).. all courts agree that " substantial " should not be confused with " major or minority" , even an iota of govt funding along with controls is sufficient grounds for challenging private nature of any organisation > > regards > Mohit > > ________________________________ > From: Sarbajit Roy < sroy...@gmail.com> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011 10:09 PM > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES > > Dear Mr Gupta > > I am sorry to say that your great hero Mr Shailesh Gandhi evidently "respectfully disagrees" with every other "commission". > > On the one hand you praise IC(SG) for his super fast decisions and high disposal rate, on the other hand he passes chop-suey decisions like this which are completely contrary http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2011_000488_13840_M_64... > > Now please take your choice. Fast decisions without hearing appellants or (superficially) reasoned decisions like IC(AD) passed in Mohit's case ??? I look forward to your reply.. > > Sarbajit > > read more » | |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment