Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 350 (GAU)

KISHORI MOHAN PAUL v. STATE OF ASSAM

2017-03-20

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Heard on admission. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 25.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) 100/2016. 3. The appellant claims himself to be Founder Teacher and retired Headmaster of Kamalabari Middle English School, Majuli. According to him, he had donated Rs.2 lacs for construction of the Administrative Building of the School. His grievance is that he and his wife were not invited in two consecutive meetings of the School Managing Committee held in the year 2011. Aggrieved, he filed an application on 7.11.2012 under the Right to Information Act before the State Public Information Commissioner seeking information why he was not invited to the School Managing Committee Meeting, in violation of the Education Code of Assam and guidelines of Sarba Siksha Abhijan. Since the appellant did not receive any information, he filed First Appeal on 20.7.2013, but to no avail. The appellant, therefore, filed Second Appeal on 13.9.2013 before the State Information Commissioner, who decided the appeal vide order dated 9.9.2015, which reads as under: “The present Head Master Sri Suren Kakoti stated that it was not the School Management Committee meeting but a general meeting of the guardians, members of the local Panchayat and other prominent citizen like Goan Bura of the area. This was in accordance with the guidelines of SSA. Sri Kakoti further submitted that the book containing the recorded minutes of the meetings of the School Management Committee, which was with his predecessor and the present appellant Sri Kishori Mohan Paul, was seized by the Police in connection with a Court case and has never been made available to the Head Master Sri Suren Kakoti. Therefore, he is not aware of any resolution, whereby it was decided not to invite Sri K.M. Paul. 4. From the above, it is clear that Sri Kishori Mohan Paul and his wife were not invited to the general meeting convened by the Head Master Sri Suren Kakoti. However, whether the point raised by the applicant as to why he and his wife were not invited is not a part of any office record or document as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 or under the definition of Right to Information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, whether the point raised by the applicant as to why he and his wife were not invited is not a part of any office record or document as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 or under the definition of Right to Information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The present Head Master Sri Suren Kakoti has also categorically deposed before the Commission that there is no document or information regarding the reason why the petitioner and his wife were not invited in the general body meeting. Therefore, there is no information to be furnished. 5. As regards point No. 2, regarding violation of Assam Education Code or SSA guidelines, as alleged by the petitioner, the Commission asked the petitioner to show any such guidelines which were violated by the present Head Master. But he could not produce those guidelines. However, the petitioner feels aggrieved that as the founder teacher or as retired Head Master and also as the donor member of the past School Management Committee he should have been invited for the general meeting of the school mentioned above. The information Commission is not the appropriate forum for redressal of this grievance. For this the petitioner/ appellant may approach the competent authority i.e. the D.I of Schools, Kamalabari, Majuli for redressal of his grievance, if the present Head Master Sri Suren Kakoti has violated any SSA guidelines as alleged by the petitioner/appellant. 6. With the above order the second appeal petition is disposed of.” 7. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) 100/2016, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find no merit in the appeal. From the order of the Chief Information Commissioner, it is clear that the appellant and his wife were not invited in the General Meeting, but the information for not inviting them was not available to the Headmaster Shri Suren Kakoti. The Headmaster of the School also deposed before the Chief Information Commissioner that there was no document or information regarding the reasons as to why the appellant and his wife were not invited in the General Body Meeting and as such, the information sought cannot be furnished. The Headmaster of the School also deposed before the Chief Information Commissioner that there was no document or information regarding the reasons as to why the appellant and his wife were not invited in the General Body Meeting and as such, the information sought cannot be furnished. As regards second information sought by the appellant that by not inviting him whether the person concerned violated the Education Code of Assam and guidelines of the Sarba Siksha Abhijan relating to School Management, he himself could not produce any such guidelines before the Chief Information Commissioner to demonstrate violation. In the fact situation of the case, the Chief Information Commissioner, in our considered view, has rightly advised the appellant to approach the competent authority i.e. Deputy Inspector of Schools, Kamalabari, Majuli for redressal of his grievance. We also fail to understand what purpose of appellant will now be served by knowing reasons for not being invited in the meeting of the Managing Committee held as far back in the year 2011. 9. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.