The reason for writing on this issue again is that in our State (Orissa), private colleges that receive grant-in-aid from the Government and are affiliated to this or that University in the State are treated as ‘public authorities’ under the RTI Act. Were the Central Information Commission to have decided the case otherwise than in the manner in which it has done, the aided and affiliated ‘private colleges’ of our State may using the above as a pretext jump into immediate action demanding withdrawal of the obligations cast on them as public authorities under RTI Act. And that is why we in Orissa do keenly watch the trends of the decisions made elsewhere on the position of private colleges like Sri Aurobondo College of Delhi vis-à-vis RTI Act. So, please don’t read any other intentions into my mails on this issue. Now coming to your reply, I went through the recent judgment of Delhi High Court, which you kindly referred to (http://lobis. nic.in/dhc/ SKN/judgement/ 06-10-2009/ SKN25092009CW726 52007.pdf). It however doesn’t provide any conclusive position as to whether the concerned private school should be considered a public authority or not. Its concluding para said, “19. In view of the above findings, the question whether the petitioner school is a public authority is left open and not decided”. It means, depending upon the nature of a particular case, a private body either may be or may not be a public authority for the purposes of RTI Act. Of course, I couldn’t access instantly the 35 page CIC decision made on the other case referred by you "Sarbajit Roy versus DERC" due to lack of an instant link thereto. Well, in that case you might have gone into “all aspects of 2(h) and 2(f)”. I would like to go through it for its implications and relevance for private colleges like Sri Aurobindo College, which are affiliates of Delhi University. Now coming to the moot question as to whether Sri Aurobindo College can be taken as a public authority or not, we ought to look at the definition of ‘College’ itself as mentioned in Sec-2(a) of DU Act 1922 (http://www.du.ac.in/du/act-i.pdf ), which covers both affiliated colleges (such as a private college like Sri Aurobindo College) and constituent colleges. And the powers of University as described in Sec-4 of the said Act include the powers to prescribe courses of studies and conduct examinations, and equally extend to both affiliated and constituent colleges. Thus it is very much arguable to hold that Sri Aurobindo College, though a private college, carries out two most important functions of the principal public authority called DU, and is therefore a public authority in itself. Going by the above definition of ‘College’, DU should be better understood as a system or conglomeration of public authorities, of which the Colleges affiliated or constituent are its extensions or component parts. The reading of an Annual Report of DU (for instance, Part-1, 83rd Report, 2005-06, http://www.du.ac.in/du/annualreportpt1-06.pdf) gives such an impression too, since it is sub-captioned ‘Report of Centres, Departments and Colleges’. Its webpage ‘Colleges’ provides an alphabetical list of all Colleges without distinguishing between constituent or affiliated ones and Sri Aurobindo College appears as one among them(http://www.du.ac.in/collegesmain.html) Thus if the whole is a public authority, its every part is sure to bear the same character. Moreover, on reading the Commissioner’s decision, it was evident that the Principal of the College himself has accepted his College as a ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act and is apologetic about the charge of non-compliance to its provisions (http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-24112009-18.pdf). That be so, why should citizens like you and me bother? It is after all going to serve a general interest of ensuring transparency in the conduct of private educational institutions, which because of so many reasons are always suspect in the public eyes. Now to quote your next objection to the Commissioner who imposed penalty on the Principal of Aurobindo College, “Don't you know that only PIOs are liable to penalty? On what basis have you computed the Rs.5,000?” Please read the opening words of Section 19(8), “In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including …”. Here as we see, the Commission has been entrusted with sweeping powers to order a defaulter public authority to submit to any sort of instruction to be issued by the Commission so as to ensure compliance to the Act. Thus, in the instant case of Sri Aurobindo College, imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.5,000/- by the Commissioner against the Principal may be viewed as an exercise of the abovementioned sweeping power given to the Commission in the very interest of implementation of RTI Act.
With regards, Chitta Behera --- On Sun, 29/11/09, sarbajitr <[email protected]> wrote: From: sarbajitr <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Re: SPECIAL NOTICE: Dear Mr Habibullah - Is Shailesh Gandhi an idiot ?? To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, 29 November, 2009, 12:20 PM Dear Members I think this topic should be changed to "Is Mr Habibullah an idiot?" http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/city/ delhi/CIC- slaps-fine- of-Rs-57500- on-Delhi- Sikh-Gurdwara- Management- Committee/ articleshow/ 5280346.cms "CIC slaps fine of Rs 57,500 on Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee" Here is Mr Habibullah's original order http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ WB-10072008- 04.pdf t page 3 he claims that the DGSMC is formed *BY* an order of Parliament (Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971). He even underlines it for emphasis . Mr Habibullah CORRUPTLY refuses to set out that actually this Act only establishes the DSGMC *UNDER* the Act. He also corruptly claims that the Committee has accepted that they are a public authority (which they have not). The relevant portion of the DSGA,71 reads as "2. Definition. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ...(c) "Committee" means the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee established under section 3;" Note use of the word "under". IC(SG) then roves even further in his own orders. such as http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ SG-22072009- 02.pdf I have failed to find (on DHC website) any case disposed off on 20.Jan.2009 as he claims in the order. All these matters get challenged in the High Court at the tax payers expense. Since the CIC never defends its cases properly, the High Courts are whittling away the RTI Act. Sarbajit's new RTI Laws 1) "RTI Act is to be missued not used" 2) Save RTI gag CIC. Sarbajit --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "sarbajitr" <sroy1...@.. .> wrote: > > Dear Chitta > > I would not like to use the same language against long time members of this > group - who I expect to be RTI experts by now. > > It is also neccesary to communicate that the CIC's legal department is > equally fed up with CLOWNS / JOKERS like Shailesh Gandhi, O.P.Kejariwal / > Wajahat Habibullah etc who go around passing foolish and unlettered orders > which get ridiculed in the High Court. In fact even the CIC's venerable Prof > K..K.Nigam has said that he will not defend their foolishness anymore no > matter how much (actually very little) money they pay him. > > Firstly, bodies established *UNDER* an Act of Parliamnet / State Legislature > are NOT Public Authorities. They have to be established *BY* an Act of > Parliament. If these have been established *under* any Act they only become > P/As if they are established *BY* an order / notification etc. of appropriate > government. > > Secondly, I fail to see how private colleges *affiliated* to DU are deemed to > be public authorities vide section 5(1). FYI, I can be deemed to be an expert > on who is a public authority considering that my own case "Sarbajit Roy > versus DERC" is the leading case on this and the 35 page CIC decision which I > and Mr L.C.Singhi wrote jointly goes into all aspects of 2(h) and 2(f). > > Yes, info can be sought from private educational colleges through DU using > 2(f). There is a recent judgement of Delhi HC by J.Sanjeev Khanna on this > "Poorna Prajna Public School". > > http://lobis. nic.in/dhc/ SKN/judgement/ 06-10-2009/ SKN25092009CW726 > 52007.pdf > > The Private School / College then retains the status of a 3rd party. It is > noteworthy that J.Khanna refused to go into the question of whether the > school is a public authority. > > In conclusion, Mr Habibullah and Mr Gandhi are adults capable of defending > themselves. Their office provides them no shield from responding to charges > which are levelled at them by any person who says J'accuse. I am prepared to > publicly debate this issue with them in any forum including a court of law. > > Sarbajit Roy > > --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, Chitta Behera <chittabehera1@ > wrote: > > > > Dear Mr.Roy, > > It seems the Commissioner took a right decision in imposing penalty against > > the private colleges affiliated to Delhi University. Of course, he could > > have in his discretion given a speaking exposition on how private colleges > > affiliated to DU are considered 'public authorities' within the meaning of > > definition thereof provided in Section 2(h) of RTI Act. According to this > > provision, any institution 'established or constituted' under any law made > > by Parliament is a public authority. As per this provision, Delhi > > University is a public authority since it is constituted under a Central > > law called Delhi University Act 1922 (No.8 of 1922). Once the DU is > > accepted as a public authority, the Colleges affiliated to it become > > necessarily the Public Authorities and are liable to appoint PIOs, APIOs > > and Appellate Authorities just as the DU or the Government run Colleges > > are. Because Section 5(1) says inter alia, "Every Public Authority shall . > > . . . . . > > designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers . . > > .. in all its administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary > > to provide information to persons requesting for information under this > > Act". Is there any dispute as to whether Aurobindo College, an affiliate > > of DU is a public authority? I think there shouldn't be any in view of the > > just quoted Section 5(1). And once the said College is legally covered > > under the purview of RTI Act as a Public Authority, it is bound not only to > > appoint PIOs and APIOs etc as per Section 5(1), but to carry out other > > obligations too including those under Section 4, since the opening words > > of Section 4 are "Every public authority . . . . . ". > >  > > Thus it seems, the concerned Commissioner has not done anything wrong by > > imposing penalty against an affiliate of DU on the grounds on > > non-compliance of Section4 and more so when the concerned institution was > > previously directed by the Commission to comply with the same.       > >      > > Chitta Behera, > > Cuttack, Orissa > > > > --- On Sat, 28/11/09, sarbajitr <sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > > > From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@> > > Subject: [rti_india] SPECIAL NOTICE: Dear Mr Habibullah - Is Shailesh > > Gandhi an idiot ?? > > To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com > > Date: Saturday, 28 November, 2009, 11:34 PM > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > http://www.dnaindia .com/academy/ report_principal s-of-9-du- colleges- > > penalised- for-rti-non- compliance_ 1317744 > > > > http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ SG-24112009- 18.pdf > > (and 8 other decisions like this? on complaint of some Rajiv Lala) > > This idiot Commissioner obviously doesn't possess a copy of the RTI Act.. > > > > How is the Principal of this private college a PIO? Don't you know that > > only PIOs are liable to penalty ? On what basis have you computed the > > Rs.5,000 penalty - you stupid f**ker ?. > > > > Is Aurobindo College a public authority - settle that first you bloody > > fool! After that settle if they must appoint a PIO and put the neccesary > > RTI infrastructure in place you moron!!! > > > > This is a list of all DU colleges. Why don't you ask St Stephens College to > > appoint PIOs ?? > > > > BTW: What is a "demi-official letter?" > > > > Does anyone want more MGO appointees appointed to the CIC? Isn't one bad > > enough !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. > > http://in.yahoo. com/ > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
