Private School Not Subject To RTI Merely Because PSU Paid Fees For Its Employees' Wards: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a private educational institution does not become a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because a Public Sector Undertaking reimburses the deficit arising from concessional fees charged to the wards of its employees. The Court observed that such a contractual financial arrangement cannot be construed as "substantial financing" so as to attract the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by DAV Public School, challenging orders of the Central Information Commission whereby the school was treated as a "public authority", its Principal was treated as a deemed Public Information Officer, and a penalty was imposed. The dispute arose after the wife of respondent No. 3, who had been appointed on an ad hoc basis in the petitioner school, was discontinued from service. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed RTI applications before the CPIO, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), seeking information. Although the petitioner consistently maintained that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act, the CIC directed it to furnish the information.
The petitioner contended that the Memorandum of Understanding with SECL merely required SECL to reimburse the deficit arising from concessional fees charged to the wards of its employees. It was argued that the arrangement was purely contractual and did not amount to ownership, control or substantial financing by SECL.
The Court noted that the determinative factors for bringing an institution within the fold of the Act are ownership, control, or substantial financing by the State or its instrumentalities. It reiterated that "substantial financing" means funding of such magnitude that the institution is practically dependent upon the Government for its existence, and that mere grants, subsidies, exemptions or other forms of financial assistance do not satisfy this test.
The Court found that the petitioner school was managed by the DAV College Managing Committee, had its own independent financial structure and was neither owned nor controlled by SECL. It held that reimbursement of the deficit arising from concessional education provided to the wards of SECL employees was a contractual arrangement and did not amount to substantial financing.
“… the documentary material brought on record, and the settled legal principles governing the field, this Court arrives at a firm, definitive, and well reasoned conclusion that the petitioner institution does not fall within the ambit of a “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that the mere presence of SECL representatives in the Local Managing Committee did not establish administrative control over the institution. It also held that the Principal of the petitioner school could not be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer since the deeming fiction under Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act operates only in relation to a public authority.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders of the Central Information Commission.
Case Title: DAV Public School v. Central Information Commission & Ors. [WPC No. 3145 of 2020] and connected matters.