Central Information Commission
Shri M.M. Lal vs Customs Department on 24 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01489
Dated, the 24th June, 2009.
Appellant : Shri M.M. Lal
Respondents : Customs Department
Pursuant to Commission's notice dated 09.04.2009, this matter came up for hearing on 20.05.2009. Appellant (Shri M.M. Lal) was present through his Counsel, Shri C.D. Mulherkar. Respondents were present through the CPIO, Shri Ajay Kumar.
2. The initial point in this second-appeal is whether the appellant herein, Shri M.M. Lal has a locus-standi to file the second-appeal in respect of the RTI-application dated 14.05.2008 and the first-appeal dated 15.07.2008, which were filed by another person, viz. Shri Prantap Kalra.
3. I'm not persuaded by the arguments of the appellant that these petitions and appeals were filed on behalf of a Firm, viz. Associate Law Advisers and the RTI-applicant as well as the First Appellant, Shri Prantap Kalra was retained by the Firm to present the RTI-application and the first-appeal on behalf of the Firm. Shri Prantap Kalra, according to the submission of the Second Appellant (Shri M.M.Lal) has now left the service of the Firm and, therefore, the second-appeal has been filed by another person namely, Shri M.M. Lal.
4. There is no doubt that the Right to Information Act confers this right not on all 'persons' but only on 'citizens' and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term "citizen". A juristic person can be a person but he cannot be a citizen. Every citizen is a person but the vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.
5. A similar issue came up for consideration before Full Bench of this Commission as to whether Section 3 of the RTI Act entitles an Association of citizens to receive information. In this case, Cuttack Bar Association submitted the application under the RTI Act in the name of the Association and the application was signed by the Secretary whose individual name could be ascertained only from the Letter Head of the AT-24062009-03.doc Page 1 of 2 Association. The First Appeal was filed not in the name of individual citizen but as Secretary, Cuttack Bar Association and it was signed by a different person who subsequently took over as Secretary of the Association. Similarly, the 2nd appeal was also not filed in the name of any individual but in the name of its Secretary. After carefully considering the whole issue, the Commission came to the conclusion that the Association, its Secretary in its official designation, cannot be treated as citizen under the law.
6. It has been the consistent position of this Commission that the right to file RTI-applications and second-appeals as well as first-appeals belongs exclusively to the citizens of this country and not to Corporate entities, Firms, Companies, etc. The only reason why this RTI-petition by Shri Prantap Kalra, even though filed on behalf of a Firm, was considered was because Shri Kalra himself was an identifiable person and a citizen of India and, therefore, the first-appeal and the RTI-application were construed to have been filed by him in his personal behalf. Now the second-appeal has been filed by another person namely, Shri M.M. Lal, who doesn't have any authority to file this second-appeal on behalf of Shri Prantap Kalra.
7. I am, therefore, not persuaded by the appellant's argument that he should be allowed to file the second-appeal even when he was not the first RTI-petitioner or the First Appellant.
8. The appeal is, therefore, rejected on grounds of maintainability.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-24062009-03.doc Page 2 of 2