Central Information Commission
Goldmine Advertising Ltd vs National Handloom Development ... on 11 July, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/NHDCL/A/2017/607159/01063
File no.: CIC/NHDCL/A/2017/607159
In the matter of:
Goldmine Advertising Ltd
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Handloom Development Corporation Ltd.,
Wegmans Business Park, Tower - 1,
Plot no. 03, Sector Knowledge Park - III,
Surajpur - Kasna Main Road,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201 306
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/07/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 19/09/2017 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 02/11/2017 Date of Hearing : 10/07/2019 Date of Decision : 10/07/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri S S Dhakarwal, DGM(HR) & CPIO, NHDC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the reason for inordinate delay in payment of Bill no. 12026 dated 15/06/2016 for Rs. 11,27,000/- raised by Goldmine Advertising Ltd. on NHDC Ltd. Also wants to know the exact date of payment.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite valid service of hearing notice dated 25.06.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no ED033501061IN.
The CPIO submitted that he had never received the above mentioned RTI application and it was only after receipt of the CIC's hearing notice that he came to know about it. On a query by the Commission as to how this is possible when the RTI application was filed online by the appellant on the RTI portal, the CPIO submitted that their department does not possess any knowledge about the online portal of the RTI and have never received any online application before nor do they work on the online portal.
Observations:
At the outset, it is noted by the Commission that the instant RTI application and the subsequent First appeal was filed by Goldmine Advertising Ltd and not by an individual in his personal capacity and therefore, it is the agency which is the applicant in the present case. However, the Second Appeal was filed by one person namely Honey Agarwal who has also filed the appeal on behalf of Goldmine Advertising Ltd. The Commission contacted all the phone numbers which were provided in the RTI application and in the second appeal memo. Both the persons contacted submitted that they have nothing to do with the RTI application as it was filed on behalf of the agency.
At this point, it is relevant to quote a decision of the Commission dated 03.03.2008 in the case of Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, File No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00410, a three member bench of the Commission made the following observations:
"In the present, the applicants have come as a distinct legal entity. From the records it appears that the application under the RTI Act was submitted on 6th September, 2006 in the name of the Association. The application was signed by the Secretary, Shri Goliath Pasha whose name 2 File no.: CIC/NHDCL/A/2017/607159 as an individual can be ascertained only from the letter head of the Association and his signature per-se does not signify identity of the signatory. The first appeal has also been filed, not in the name of any individual citizen, but by the Secretary, Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda who seems to have subsequently taken over as Secretary of the Association. Similarly, the second appeal before this Commission has not been filed in the name of any individual citizen but by the Secretary of the Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda as Secretary for and on behalf of the association. From this, it is clear that the signatories to the application and the appeal under the RTI Act are two distinct individuals. It, therefore, leaves no doubt that it is the Association which is the applicant and the appellant as a distinct legal entity and the Association or its Secretary in its official designation cannot be treated as 'citizen' under the law."
In the matter of Shri Inder Grover Vs. Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00121 dated 27.06.2006) the Commission has held:
"after hearing both the parties, the Commission observed that it would have been in order if the CPIO had declined information under Section 3 of the Act as the applicant had applied as the Managing Director of a Company and not as citizen of India, but having partially supplied the information to the party, the Commission had to adjudicate in the matter"
In the matter of Shri D.C. Dharewa & Co., Chartered Accountants, Kolkata vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi (Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00890 dated 22.02.2007) the Commission dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant, being a firm/company itself, is not covered under Section 3 of the Act as an information seeker.
In the case of Indian Technomac Company Ltd., Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, File No CIC/MP/A/2015/000066, following observation has been made:
"The facts of the present case make the following two things very clear: (i) the signatory of the appeals Shri Rahas Bihari Panda is the Company Secretary of M/s. Indian Technomac Company Ltd; and (ii) the signatory to the appeals Shri Rahas Bihari Panda is acting for and on behalf of the 3 Company and not in his individual capacity as a citizen. These facts are not altered by the appellant company authorizing the signatory to appear before the Commission and to sign and file the appeals. Such authorization does not subtract from the clear and self stated position of the appellant in the present appeals that it is the company which is the appellant. It has not been claimed in the appeals that the signatory is filing the appeals in his personal capacity as a citizen. In any case, the appellant cannot be different from the one in the original RTI applications made under the RTI Act. Secondly, since the RTI applications were not filed by the individual therefore the Commission does not consider it necessary to go into the hypothetical question regarding the outcome if the signatory had filed the RTI applications in his individual capacity as a citizen."
The ratio of the above mentioned decisions are squarely applicable in this case.
It is surprising that the CPIO claims that they do not have any knowledge about the working of the online RTI portal nor any training has been imparted to their organisation about the same. The Commission is appalled to see such a weak state of technical working in the respondent authority and advice that suitable action be taken to enable online filing of RTIs.
Decision:
In line with the aforementioned decisions of the Commission, Goldmine Advertising Ltd., cannot be considered as an identifiable citizen as per Section 3 of the RTI Act, 2005. No relief can therefore be provided to the respondent.
An advisory is issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, to organise basic training programmes on RTI Act/matters to the officers (respondent CPIO/PIO and FAA)/ and staff dealing with RTI matters working under them sensitizing them on the online working of the RTI portal without any delay. The Commission desires that this advice should be viewed seriously and an action taken report be submitted to the Commission within one month of the receipt of this order.
4File no.: CIC/NHDCL/A/2017/607159 The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this advisory to Secretary, Ministry of Textiles for his personal knowledge and follow up action in the matter.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5