Dear Chitta Its great to know that RTI is alive and kicking in Orissa /Kalinga. Sidharth has already mentioned that we have 2 ICs at CIC who are fluent in Oriya.
It occurred to me that one of them is IC (AN Tiwari) who studied at Ravenshaw College (now a University) at Cuttack. Incidentally my great grandfather Prof Khirode Chunder Roy Choudhury was for many years the Principal of Ravenshaw College 100 years ago. He also brought out the first English newspaper of Orissa called "Star of Utkal" but stopped publication of this newspaper due to police censorship. He lived in Tulsipur (?), on one side lived Subhash Bose's family (Janaki Bose) and on the other was Biju Patnaik's father. That I come from a family which insists on defending (in person) their own RTI cases till the bitter end can be seen from this order dated 1911 from Utkal " Khirode Chunder Roy Chowdhury vs Emperor on 17 November, 1911" http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/477048/ Anyway, a careful reading of the Delhi High Court Judgement makes it clear that information can be accessed by a public authority from such private schools / colleges via 2(f) if a) The information sought can be *lawfully* accessed AND b) there is no bar or prohibition in *that* law. In another (unreported) judgement of J.Ravindra Bhat in my own case against DERC/DISCOMS, he has exempted the DERC (State Electricity Regulator) from using its regulatory powers to summon information from Discoms on behalf of RTI applicants. Your reasoning on such colleges being P/As in their own right is fallacious and "wishful thinking". If wishes were horse then beggars would fly. The 35 page DERC decision (it loses 1 page in the PDF version somehow) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_30112006_12.pdf (As usual we are back in the HC on this while the Discoms enjoy their ex-parte stay) Sarbajit --- In [email protected], Chitta Behera <chittabehe...@...> wrote: > > 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 âpublic > authoritiesâ 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 âprivate collegesâ 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 donât 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 doesnât provide any > conclusive position as to whether the concerned private school should be > considered a public authority or not. Its concluding para said, â19. In > view of the above findings, the question whether the petitioner school is a > public authority is left open and not decidedâ. 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 couldnât 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 âall > aspects of 2(h) and 2(f)â. 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 > âCollegeâ 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 âCollegeâ, 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 âReport of Centres, Departments and Collegesâ. > Its webpage âCollegesâ 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 Commissionerâs decision, it was evident that the Principal of > the College himself has accepted his College as a âPublic Authorityâ > 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, âDon't you know that only PIOs are > liable to penalty? On what basis have you computed the Rs.5,000?â Please > read the opening words of Section 19(8), âIn 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 â¦â. 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 >  >
