New Delhi, Apr 28 (PTI) Raising concerns over transparency in the allocation of public land to private schools, the Central Information Commission has questioned the Delhi Development Authority for denying information under the RTI Act, noting that the matter involves students' interest.

The case relates to a school in Phase-3, Ashok Vihar, where an RTI applicant sought details on whether the land was allotted at market or concessional rates and the terms of such allotment.

The applicant claimed that the school's claim of being "self-owned" was being used to justify fee hikes affecting around 6,000 students.

In its response, the DDA denied the requested information by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, stating that the information sought "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 individual."

The First Appellate Authority upheld this response, terming the reply satisfactory.

However, Information Commissioner Sanjeev Kumar Jindal said in the order that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act appeared to be a "mechanical reproduction" of the provision without adequate justification and noted that the matter involves students' interest.

It held notes that "information on the land status asked in the RTI application can be given by the respondents" and directed the respondent CPIO to issue a revised reply clearly stating the factual position within 21 days.

The commission also flagged the absence of the respondent during the hearing, calling it a disregard for quasi-judicial proceedings, and issued a show-cause notice for possible penal action.

In a separate case, another RTI application sought information about land allotment to a private school in Kailash Colony.

The applicant asked when the land was allotted, whether it was granted at a concessional rate, the total area allocated, the price, the conditions tied to the allotment, and related documents, such as lease agreements and allotment letters. Concerns were raised about the enforcement of conditions associated with concessional allotments.

With both the appellant and the respondent absent during the hearing in the second matter, the commission directed the respondent CPIO to submit a written explanation for the absence despite due notice, warning of action under the RTI Act. PTI MHS MPL

MPL