With Hon'Ble ML Sharma at the helm of affairs military generals as well as the ministry of Defence can breadth easy.It started with Hon'Ble Dr Prasayat .J who wrote the order for the 3 judges bench of the supreme court on Civil Appeal No 3495 of 2005 decided on 28 Apr 2009( the judge retired on 10 may 2009) in respect to sttaus of URC employees. It said that URCs are private ventures and hence by any stretch of imagination employees of the govt or CSD( It forgot that more than 70 % of the CSD canteens out of 4500 such URCs are being run by combat personnel only. Defence civilians are running their own URCs. By corollery all those combatants and those Defence civilians become private ventures' employees and by any stretch of imagination they are not employees of the Govt or the CSD. What an wonderful SC judgement. I am not a lawyer but --. Simply LAW is an Ass.
The JAG Br( Army), supposedly the law qualfiedofficers in combat dress inferred from the above order hence URCs are not instrumentality of the state and hence not covered by RTI Act 2005. Mr Hon'Ble ML Sharma one of the IC in Central Info Commission , new Delhi has taken the advice of JAG Br( Army) very seriously.He is seen disposing all the second appeals seeking info on URCs stating that those are not instrumentality of the states , a point Dr Prasayat .J did not forget to mention specifically so that such is not interpreted by anyone.
Now the inference of the JAG Br (Army ) is being seen extended even to army schools , Air Force Schools being run by the Defence Departments on defence land. It will soon engulf the super marlets and Malls , benia shops , beauty parlours that are being run commercially by the civilian contractors on the defence buildings duly mis-appropriated.
Mr hon'ble ML Sharma need to explain his conduct in public or else we the people of India will get him removed very urgently.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000401
(Raghuraj Singh vs. Air Force Bal Bharti School)
FACTS
This is in continuation of this Commission’s proceedings dated
2.6.2011. As scheduled, the matter is heard on 5
th
July, 2011. Appellant present.
As directed the Principal of Air Force Bal Bharti School is present before the
Commission. He submits a written representation which is taken on record.
2. It is his plea that Air Force Bal Bharti School is unaided school
and, therefore, is not a ‘public authority’ in terms of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
On the other hand, the appellant has filed a written representation wherein he has
contended that the school is governed by the Government and it seeks recognition
from the Government and, therefore, is a public authority. Para 09 of the
representation is extracted below:-
“That the Air Force Bal Bharti School is governed by the Government as
it seeks recognition from the government and is recognized by the
government under the act/ rules and has to comply the government’s order
for fulfilling requisite criteria for recognition of a school. Not only this,
the land has been provided by the government on nominal lease amount
which is itself considered substantial financing by the Government.
Further, this institution claim rebates in house-tax from the concerned
government authority, they avail various facilities supplied by the
government viz. water, electricity, drain, sewerage services and more over,
the ex-officio members of the Managing Committee of this school are paid
by the Government. All these facilities are availed by this school and
provided by the government, hence, the school cannot say that it is not
governed by the government and there is no substantial finance by the
government is involved.”
3. The appellant has also relied on the Allahabad High Court
judgment in Dhara Singh Girls High School case (citation not given) wherein it
was allegedly held that whenever there is even an iota of nexus regarding control
and financing of public authority over the activity of a private body, the same
would fall under the provisions of the RTI Act.
4. The pleadings of the appellant, however, are not consistent with
the view taken by this Commission in several of its decision wherein Air Force/
Army Schools were excluded from being ‘public authority’ u/s 2 (h) of the RTI
Act. In the case of Lal Saheb Singh vs. IAF (CIC/MA/A/2006/00697/LS) dated
20
th
October 2009, this Commission has held that Air Force Bal Bharti School is
not a public authority. In another decision dated 17.11.2009 in File No.
CIC/SM/A/2009/000822/LS (Anju Rajput vs Army School, Ferozepur), it was
held that the said School is not a public authority. The ratio of the above
decisions squarely applies in the present case.5. In view of this, it is held that Air Force Bal Bharti School, New
Delhi, is not a public authority in terms of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and,
therefore, the said School is not liable to disclose any information under the RTI
Act. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
6. Order reserved and pronounced on 3
rd
October, 2011.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
