The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a private unaided DAV Public School cannot be treated as a "public authority" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act merely because it receives limited financial support from a public sector undertaking. Setting aside multiple orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Court held that reimbursement of fee deficits and occasional assistance from South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) do not amount to "substantial financing" under the RTI Act.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by DAV Public School, Korba, challenging a series of CIC orders passed in second appeals under the RTI Act. The dispute arose after an RTI applicant sought information regarding the school's internal administration and service matters by filing applications before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SECL.
Although the RTI applications were addressed to SECL, they related exclusively to the affairs of the privately managed DAV school. The school consistently maintained that it was not a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and therefore had no statutory obligation to furnish information.
Despite this stand, the CIC treated the school as a public authority, declared its Principal to be a "deemed Public Information Officer (PIO)," and imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 for alleged non-compliance. Aggrieved by these directions, the school approached the High Court.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioner argued that the school is managed by the DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, a registered society operating as a private, self-financed educational institution. It contended that SECL neither owns nor controls the school and that the financial arrangement between them is limited to reimbursement of deficits arising from concessional fees charged to children of SECL employees.
The school further argued that such reimbursement could not be equated with substantial government financing and that its Principal could never be treated as a deemed PIO under the RTI Act.
On the other hand, the RTI applicant contended that the school enjoyed financial and infrastructural support from SECL, including land and participation of SECL officials in the Local Managing Committee, bringing it within the scope of a public authority.
Court's Observations
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad examined the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and referred to several Supreme Court decisions interpreting the expression "substantially financed."
The Court observed that the decisive test is whether an institution is owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. Mere contractual arrangements or reimbursement of expenses do not satisfy this requirement.
The bench noted:
"The petitioner institution is neither owned by the Government nor by SECL; it is not subject to any deep, pervasive, or all-encompassing control... The financial arrangement with SECL... falls far short of the threshold of 'substantial financing.'"
The Court further found that the DAV school generates its own resources, maintains an independent financial corpus, and is administered exclusively by the DAV College Managing Committee. It held that occasional infrastructure assistance or the presence of SECL representatives in the Local Managing Committee does not amount to governmental control.
The judgment also clarified that the deeming provisions relating to Public Information Officers under Section 5 of the RTI Act can operate only when the institution itself qualifies as a public authority.
"The deeming fiction... cannot be invoked... so as to fasten statutory obligations upon officers of a private body,"
the Court observed while holding that the school's Principal could not legally be treated as a deemed PIO.
Decision
Allowing the batch of writ petitions, the High Court quashed the CIC's orders dated September 25 and September 28, 2020.
The Court held that DAV Public School, Korba, is a private unaided educational institution that is neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by SECL or the Government. Consequently, it does not qualify as a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and the CIC lacked jurisdiction to treat its Principal as a deemed Public Information Officer or impose any penalty.
However, the Court clarified that its ruling is confined to the applicability of the RTI Act and does not prevent the RTI applicant from pursuing any other remedy available under law before an appropriate forum.
Case Details:
Case Title: DAV Public School v. Central Information Commission & Ors. (Connected Matters)
Case Number: WPC No. 3145 of 2020 with WPC Nos. 3365 of 2020, 65 of 2021 & 862 of 2021
Judge: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Decision Date: 18 June 2026
 Department-300x169.webp)