Central Information Commission
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kaira vs Ministry Of Culture on 28 March, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/WB/C/2010/000462/LS
(Kuldeep Singh Khaira -Vs- SGPC, Amritsar)
Dated : 28.03.2011
This matter was heard on 29.12.2010. The proceedings of the day are
extracted below :-
"Appellant : Shri Kuldeep Singh Khaira
Respondent : Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak
Committee, Amritsar
Date of Hearing : 29.12.2010
Date of Decision : 29.12.2010
FACTS :
The matter is called for hearing today dated 29.12.2010. The appellant is represented by Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal. However, nobody has appeared for the Respondent.
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 14..4.2010, the appellant had requested for information on 11 paras regarding the "Affairs of Nankana Sahib Education Trust, Gill Park, Ludhiana. This was responded to by the Public Information Officer of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, vide letter dated 6.5.2010 in Punjabi language stating therein that the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court had given a stay in the matter and the matter was fixed for hearing on 19.7.2010 and on account of such pendency, the requisite information could not be supplied.
3. Shri Agarwal is not satisfied with the response of the Public Information Officer. His submissions are two fold. Firstly, the Public Information Officer has not supplied a copy of the stay order purported to have been issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and he would like to have a copy thereof. Secondly, a similar matter came up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P (Civil) 720/2010 (Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee Vs Mohinder Singh Mathru) wherein the Court vide decision dated 22.7.2010 held that the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee was a 'public authority'.u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. He draws the Commission's attention to Para 15 of the said decision which is extracted below :-
"15. This court is, therefore, not persuaded to accept the submission made by Shri Tulsi as regards the interpretation to be placed on the words "and includes." It is also unable to accept the submission that that a body that falls within the definition of public authority under Section 2 (h) (a) to (d) must be directly or indirectly substantially financed by funds provided by the appropriate Government. That requirement would only apply to the latter part of Section 2 (h) of the RIT Act, i.e. the bodies falling within the meaning of Section 2 (h) (d) (i) or (ii). Since it is nobody's case that the Petitioner falls within the ambit of the latter part of Section 2 (h) (d)
(i) or (ii) of the RTI Act, that aspect need not be examined any further."
It is his submission that the ratio of Delhi High Court decision applies in the matter in hand and, therefore, requested information is required to be disclosed to him.
DECISION
4. In view of the above discussion, notice may be issued to the Public Information Officer of the Shiromani Gurudwara Pabbandhak Committee, Amritsar, to submit a copy of the stay purported to have been given by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and also to apprise the Commission of the latest position in the case reported to be pending before the High Court.
5. The matter is adjourned to 28.1.2010 at 1030 hrs. The Commission directs the Respondent to be properly represented failing which an expartee decision will be taken."
2. The proceedings of the subsequent hearing held on 28.01.2011 are reproduced below :-
"(Shri Kuldeep Singh Khaira - SGPC, Amritsar) Dated : 28.01.2011 This is in continuation of this Commission's proceedings dated 29.12.2010. As scheduled, the matter is heard today dated 28.01.2011. Appellant not present. SGPC is represented by Shri Simarjit Singh and Shri Harbhajan Singh. It is their submission that this matter is going to come up for hearing before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 31.1.2011 and they request the Commission to adjourn the proceedings till that time. They also assure the Commission that they would fax a copy of the High Court order on Commission's fax No. 011-26106276.
2. In the premises, the matter is adjourned to 28.03.2011 at 10.30 AM. Further action will be taken on receipt of Punjab & Haryana High Court order."
3. As scheduled, the matter is heard today dated 28.03.2011. Appellant Shri Kuldeep Singh Khaira is present. The SGPC is represented by Shri Parminder Singh. The question before the Commission is whether the Nankana Sahib Education Trust, Ludhiana, is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
4. It is the contention of the appellant that the management and the control of the Trust is exercised by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar(SGPC hereinafter). The President of SGPC is the ex-officio President of the Trust. Out of 15 Members of the Board of Trustees, 09 members are appointed by SGPC. The Trust is a body controlled and managed by SGPC for all practical purposes and, therefore, the SGPC has all the authority to summon any information from the Trust.
5. This raises the question whether SGPC is a Public Authority under section 2(h). Suffice to say that SGPC is a Committee of Management constituted under the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925. The Delhi High Court while dealing with the question of whether Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee is Public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, vide order dated 22.07.2010 has held in Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee -Vs- Mohinder Singh Motharoo that this Committee is a Public Authority under section 2(h). The reasoning, therefor, is given in para 13 of the judgment which is extracted below :-
"13. It is plain that Section 2(h)(b) applies in the instant case. The DSG Act is a law made by the Parliament. The DSGMC is a body constituted under Section 3 of the DSG Act. The DSGMC is not a body made under any law but a body made by a law. There is a distinction between the use of the words "by any law made by Parliament" and "by or under the Constitution". The Parliament has consciously not used the words "by or under" in sub-clause (b) of Section 2(h). In other words, once the body is established or constituted by the law made by Parliament, it would be a "public authority under Section 2(h)(b)."
6. The ratio of the above judgment squarely applies to SGPC. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the Sikh Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee constituted under sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925, is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
7. Now we come to the question of whether the Trust is a Public authority. In this context, it would be apt to reproduce para 04 of the representation dated 28.03.2011 submitted by the appellant :-
"(iv) The management and control of Nankana Sahib Education Trust is exercised by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar.
The President of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, is the ex-officio President of Nankana Sahib Education Trust. Out of 15 members on the Board of Trustees, 9 members are appointed by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar. Nankana Sahib Education Trust is a body controlled and managed by the respondent public authority and all the demanded information is to be already in the procession of the respondent. Further U/s 2(j) of RTI Act 2005, being the controlling body the public authority has the power to summon any information from Nankana Sahib Education Trust, Ludhiana."
8. A bare reading of the above extract would indicate that the Trust in- question is under the management and control of SGPC. As SGPC has been held to be a Public Authority and as the Trust is under the predominant and pervasive control of SGPC, the latter(SGPC) has all the authority to summon requisite information from the Trust in terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Clause (f) is reproduced below :-
"(f) information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
9. From the above provision, it is clear that information relating to any private body which can be accessed by Public authority(SGPC in this case) under any law can be termed as "information". We accept this contention of the appellant.
10. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed :-
(i) The SGPC, Amritsar, will appoint a CPIO and an Appellate Authority under the RTI Act in 06 weeks time; and
(ii) The CPIO, when so appointed, will summon the information requested for by the appellant from the Nankana Sahib Education Trust, Ludhiana, and supply it to the appellant.
11. The order of the Commission may be complied with in 10 weeks.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Public Information Officer, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee, Teja Singh Samundari Hall, Golden Temple, Amritsar, Punjab.
2. Shri Kuldeep Singh Khaira c/o Vigilant Citizens Forum, Gill Road Chapter, 3344, Chet Singh Nagar, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab.