Dismissed

The Headmaster, a.U.P.School, Oorakam v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2012WP(C)/4314/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order enforcing the Right to Information Act against his aided school, claiming it was not a public authority and the applicant lacked locus standi. The Court held the school was substantially financed by the government and thus a public authority, the applicant had standing, and information must be provided.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as devoid of merits. Petitioner must serve information to the applicant upon satisfaction of costs, or inform non-availability.

The Headmaster, a.U.P.School, Oorakam Vs the State… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/30TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 4314 of 2008 (L) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.S.VIMALANANDAN, THE HEADMASTER, A.U.P.SCHOOL, OORAKAM P.O.PATHIYARKULANGARA, PARAPPUR THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 552.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14.

¶13

4. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶14

5. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, (DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.)

¶15

6. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MULLASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

7. SRI. V.N.VIJAYAN, VADAKKEVEEDU UPASAN-B, P.O.PUTHENPALLY, MAMMIYOOR GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶17

R1, R3, R4,R5 AND R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.K. SAIDALAVI R2 BY ADV.SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

VPV

¶20

WPCNO.4314 OF 2008

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETTIIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DIRECTION OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.18234/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.18234/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1-10084/07 OF THE DIST. EDL. OFFICER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.131/SIC-Gen2/08 OF THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

VPV

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.

¶29

--------------------------------------

¶30

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2012

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner who is the Headmaster of A.U.P. School, Oorakam, which is an aided school, is before this Court challenging the orders passed by the concerned authorities under the Right to Information Act, whereby the application preferred by the 7^th respondent to make available copies of certain documents, has been allowed, directing the petitioner to satisfy the requirement.

¶35

The case of the petitioner is that the 7^th

¶36

respondent is having no locus standi to seek for the particulars of the 'admission registers' spread over the period of nearly 20 years. More so, when the 7^th respondent is not the parent of any of the pupil who is pursuing studies in the school. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner's school is a private aided school, which is not a 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

¶37

The petitioner had earlier approached this

¶38

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶39

¶40

Court by filing WP(C)No.18234/2007, where interference was declined and the writ petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the statutory/ appellate authority. Accordingly, an appeal was preferred against the impugned order. The same was rejected by the appellate authority, which made the petitioner to challenge it further before the Chief Information Commissioner. This also did not turn to be fruitful, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, challenging all the impugned orders.

¶41

To understand and appreciate the nature of reliefs

¶42

sought for, it will be worthwhile to extract the prayers raised in the writ petition which read as follows:

¶43

"(a) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-1, P-2(a), P- 4, P-7 and P-9 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.

¶44

(b) declare that A.U.P. School, Oorakam or the Headmaster of the School is not a Public Authority as defined in Section (h) of the Right to information Act (Act 22 of 2005).

¶45

¶46

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶47

¶48

got copy of the documents requested in Exhibit.P-2

¶49

(d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or prohibition restraining the Respondents from enforcing provision for Right to Information Act of 2005 against A.U.P. School, Oorakamor against the Petitioner. (e) pass such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case."

¶50

The basic challenge is with regard to the contention that the petitioner's school is not a 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h). A declaration to this effect is sought for, in turn to prohibit the concerned respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Right to Information Act against the petitioner . As such, the crucial question is whether the contention of the petitioner does contain any pith or substance, particularly as to whether it is a 'public authority' or not.

¶51

Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act defines the term 'public authority', which reads as follows:

¶52

"Public Authority" means any authority or body or institution

¶53

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶54

¶55

of self government established or constituted,-

¶56

a) by or under the Constitution;

¶57

b) by any other law made by Parliament;

¶58

c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

¶59

d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-

¶60

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

¶61

(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"

¶62

The definition of the term 'public authority' very much includes the body owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government as well as non-Government organizations substantially financed by the Government as given in Sub clause (d) of Section 2(h). In the case of the petitioner, it is admitted that it is an 'aided school', where the salary of the entire teaching staff and non-teaching staff is being provided by the State. The learned Government Pleader for the respondent submits that, the only role of the Manager of the school is to provide necessary infrastructure, so as to run the

¶63

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶64

¶65

institution, for which the Manager is being paid 'grants' by the Government at appropriate intervals. With regard to the running of the institution, the entire expense is made available by the Government, including by way of salary and this being the position, the school is substantially financed by the Government. As such, it very much comes within the purview of the definition under Section 2(h) and is a 'public authority'. The scope of the definition of the term 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h) happened to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court. It was held that, when the substantial finance is provided by the Government, it could very well be treated as a 'public authority'. In the instant case, the petitioner school stands on a much higher pedestal, for the obvious reason that the entire salary of the teachers and non teaching staff is being provided by none other than the Government. As such, it does not require any second thought to hold that the petitioner's aided school will come within the purview of the definition of the term 'public authority', as given under Section 2(h). This Court declares

¶66

¶67

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶68

that the petitioner's school very much comes/satisfies the definition of Section 2(h) and is a 'public authority'.

¶69

The next question to be considered is whether there

¶70

is any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the 7^th respondent is having no locus standi to have filed an application seeking for the particulars of the Admission Register. Section 6 of the Right to Information Act is very much categoric on this point. It clearly stipulates that a person who desires to obtain any information under the Act shall make a request in writing or through electronic means for getting the information as specified. Sub Section 2 clearly says that an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details, except those that may be necessary for contacting him. The only circumstance under which the information could be denied is, with reference to the contents of Section 8, where exemption from disclosure of information is provided. There is no case for the petitioner that the petitioner's case does come within the purview of

¶71

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶72

¶73

Section 8. More so, when the particulars sought for by the 7^th respondent are copies of the Admission Registers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got a contention as raised in 'Ground L and M' that the information sought for by the 7^th respondent pertains to the personal details of the persons concerned and as such, the same is not liable to be supplied. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said proposition, as the contents of any Admission Register maintained in the school do not amount to the restricted category, so as to claim exemption under Section 8 and hence the same is rejected.

¶74

The next question to be considered is with

¶75

regard to the acceptance of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisition made by the 7^th respondent is in respect of the details for a period of 20 years and that the matter is very much voluminous in nature. The volume of the particulars sought for shall not be a ground to deny the requisite information as already made clear by this Court in the decision reported in 2007(3) KLT 550

¶76

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶77

¶78

[Canara Bank v. Central Information Commission] . When the statute mandates for providing the requisite materials for the period, to the extent as specified therein, it can never be a ground for the petitioner to raise a contention that since the particulars to be furnished are likely to be of voluminous in nature, the same cannot be given to the party concerned. The contention raised by the petitioner is rejected on this ground as well.

¶79

The remaining question is whether the residual remedy for the petitioner, with regard to the cost and such other particulars for furnishing the information to the 7^th respondent. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to realize the entire cost from the 7^th respondent for furnishing the materials as provided under the relevant provisions of law and on satisfaction of the said amount, the extracts of the relevant registers shall be served to the 7^th respondent forthwith. So also, if any document is not available, the same shall also be let known to the applicant, so as to enable him to pursue such other appropriate remedy. The writ petition is

¶80

WP(C). No.4314 of 2008

¶81

¶82

dismissed, as devoid of any merits.

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

JUDGE

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. To JUDGE

VPV

The Headmaster, a.U.P.School, Oorakam v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Headmaster, a.U.P.School, Oorakam v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Vadakkedam Vs the K.S.E.Board

M.Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Kerala

Royappan Vs Appellate Authority Under Kerala Planati

S.Girija Vs Kerala State Development Corporation for

V.P.Moideen Vs Kalamassery Municipality

Sukumaran Vs the Joint Registrar