Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3550
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Mathew Varghese – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Directorate of Education, DDE (Zone - 29) – Respondent
CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/103635
For the Appellant: Mathew Varghese
For the Respondents: Shri Mushtaque Ali, Shri Himanshu Dogra
Disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act requires public interest justification.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) - RTI application filed seeking information on documents submitted by a private school for upgradation - Information regarding land records is personal and not subject to disclosure as no larger public interest is established. (Paras 6-10)
(B) The PIO’s earlier vague response was corrected with a revised reply in accordance with the RTI Act provisions - The appeal regarding denial of information on land records was dismissed considering the absence of relevant public interest. (Paras 7-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought information on documents related to school upgradation, including land records and management details, but faced denial justified under the RTI Act.
Findings of Court:
The revised reply by the present PIO was upheld, meeting the requirements of the RTI Act.
Issues: The Court addressed the limitation of the RTI Act regarding personal information which does not serve public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission ruled that without evidence supporting the appellant's standing to request the land records, no relief could be granted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application and initial responses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details on the commission's hearings and submissions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent's written submission and rationale for response. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. commission's observations on the responses and public interest. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final decision and disposition of the appeal. (Para 10) |
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/103635 Mathew Varghese .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Directorate of Education, DDE (Zone - 29), C Block, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Decision : 26.06.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 13.10.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority’s order : 30.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.02.2024 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 13.09.2023 seeking the following information:
“1. Please provide a set of documents of Land Records submitted by St. Johns School, E-Block, Greater Kailash, Part III, Masjid Moth, New Delhi for application upgradation from Middle level to secondary level with Education Department?
2. Who was the Manager of the above School at the time of application for upgradation?
3. How much fees the above School deposited at the time of application for the above purpose?
4. What is the Fee Receipt Number?
5. What is the present status of the above application?
6. Till what class the above School is allowed to take Admission?”
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.10.2023 stating as under:
“The School has submitted an application for up-gradation from Middle level to Secondary level and the same is in process. The information regarding the same cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide its order dated 30.10.2023, held as under.
“On perusal of relevant records made available, it is revealed therefrom that the reply provided by the PIO is not correct/complete/pointwise. Accordingly, the PIO is hereby directed to provide revised reply to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 within the 10 days of receipt of this letter.
Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with the above directions.”
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:- Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Mushtaque Ali, PIO and Shri Himanshu Dogra, TGT (CS), DDE Zone 29, Delhi present in person.
5. A written submission dated 20.06.2025 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
“With respect to the above CIC Appeal it is submitted that the matter pertains to private unaided recognized school under the jurisdiction of Zone-29, district South East.DDE-29/PIO had already given the reply on online RTI portal dated 13/10/2023 (copy enclosed). Further, applicant filed The First appeal dated vide appeal no. F. No. DE.3/RDE/E/FAA//29, appeal id 61275 & RTI ID-64233 dated 25/10/2023.After receiving an order from the First appellate authority, the PIO sent a revised reply to the applicant vide letter No. DDE/S.E/Zone-29/2525/828 dated 06/11/23(copy enclosed). Now, para-wise reply of the RTI application as per available record is as under:
1. Since St. John School, E block, Greater Kailash, Part-IlI, Masjid Moth, New Delhi is a private unaided recognized school, hence land records could not be provided under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI, Act, 2005.
Section :8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individua
