Central Information Commission
Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 22 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opp. Ber Sarai Market, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000625/4217
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000625
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal
1, Hari Nagar, Ashram,
Near Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi 110014
Respondent : Mr. N.S. Badhan
Public Information Officer
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management
Committee.
Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 15/01/2009
PIO replied : 12/02/2009
First appeal filed on : 16/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 20/03/2009
Information sought: -
The Appellant had sought following information:
1. Whether it is admitted that the Delhi Sikh Gurdawara Management Committee is a Public Authority?
2. Whether it is a fact that under Section 4 of the "The RTI Act, 2005", it is provided that -
(1) Every public authority shall -
(a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through an network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated.
(b) Publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act-
(i) the particulars of its organization, functions and duties;
(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employers;
(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or
used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the member of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees including the
system of compensation as provided in the regulations;
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indication the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) the manner execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of information available to or held by it, reduced in the electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed;
3. Whether the above said information mentioned in para 2 above has been published by the Committee?
4. If yes, how these information' can be obtained by public? Please give details therof.
Reply of PIO:
The PIO on 12.2.2009 informed to the appellant that the information on the subject is being prepared and will be published in the WEBSITE as and when the same if fully prepared.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Since no information was provided to the appellant within the mandated period of 30 days. The first appeal was preferred.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not mentioned Grounds for Second Appeal:
Non receipt of information from both the respondents (PIO and deemed PIO) within the stipulated time as prescribed under Right to Information Act, 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal with Mr. Baljit Singh and Mr. Ajai Kumar adv. Respondent: Mr. I.S. Bakshi advocate and Mr. N.S. Badhan, PIO The Respondent contends that they are not a public authority and the Commission asked them to give their oral submissions on this matter. The Respondent states that though in earlier decision of the Commission has held that the Institution is a Public Authority they wish to state, "the Appellant in the said case had specifically contended that "Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Managemetn Committee which receives no funds form the Government has been established under and Act of Parliament. There are numerous other Institutions established under Acts of Parliament or Acts of State Legislatures receiving no funds from the Government. There is a vide spread feeling that since these Institutions are not receiving any funds from the Government, those are not subject to the obligations of RTI Act. In view of the above, it necessary that the true interpretation of Section 2(h) should be set addressed so as to avoid confusion. Any interpretation given by the CIC shall carry great persuasive value for the State Commissions.
It was in this view of the matter that and couple with the facts that the statement made by the representative of the Respondents in the above case was the own opinion of the person appearing before the Commission, without having obtained any legal opinion in the matter and without fully bringing to the notice of the Commission regarding the actual status and working of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management committee and further without reference to the specific provisions of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, after receiving notices in various appeals and after seeking legal opinion in the matter with regard to the Status of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee qua its being a public authority, a review petition was filed before the Hon'ble Commission on 8 April 2009 vide diary no. 18479/09, praying before the Commission to review it order dated 10 July 2008.
The said review petition, to the knowledge of the Respondents is pending adjudication till date.
Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee has been established under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1971 and the preamble of the said Act states as under:
"An Act to provide for the proper management of the Sikh Gurudwaras and Gurudwara property in Delhi and for matters connected there with."
That as such the whole purpose of establishing the Committee by the Central Legislature was only for the Management of Gurudwara and there properties in Delhi and the character of the Committee is basically restricted to being wholly religious body. The Committee functions and carries on its objects from the funds received by it by way of offerings by the devotees and donations and it does not receive any fund or grant form the Government of India. There is no control of any nature by the Government on the functioning of the Committee and the only aspect where the Government is involved with the Committee is with regard to holding of the elections of the members of the Committee and whatever expenses with regard to the elections of the members are spent by the Government are also recoverable from the Committee under Section 37(1) of Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Act, 1971. That besides that above the Government exercises no control over any aspect or matter or functioning of the Committee and even the accounts of the Committee are not subject to scrutiny of the Comment. That the Committee has also been registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Income Tax exemption have been granted to the Committee in view of its dominant and religious charitable character. In this view of the matter, the Committee, though being a creation of the statue, does not fall within the definition of the public authority as defend under the Act and as such the Committee cannot be saddled with any liability to comply with the provisions of the Act by way of parting the information under the provisions of the RTI Act, being broadly neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the appropriate Government."
The Commission decides as follows on the contentions of the Respondent:
- Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines what a public authority is:
"public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted,--
(a) by or under the Constitution ;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,
and includes any--
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"
Section 2(h)(b) clearly says that any Institution of self Government established or constituted by any law made by Government is public authority. The Respondent states that the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee is not financed or controlled by the Government. This is covered by Section 2(h)(d) and the law does not state that sub-sections (a) to (d) need to be satisfied simultaneously for a body to be considered as public authority. The Respondent's argument that they have filed for a review of the earlier decision of the Commission cannot be an excuse for assuming that the earlier decision does not hold. Any statutory authority must consciously stay an earlier order or rescind it failing which the order issued must be considered binding. If this principle is not followed the rule of law suffers. Since statutory orders can be made inoperable by merely agitating for stays and reviews. In view of this the Commission holds that the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee is a public authority as defined under the Act.
The information sought should be disclosed suo-moto under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This should have been disclosed before 12 October 2005. The PIO is directed to ensure that this information is put- up on the website and also available in hard copy at its offices before 15 September 2009. It must also be ensure that this information is updated regularly.
The Respondent says that he wants 30 days to provide the information in this matter. The Commission does not accepts this contention since the RTI Act expects the information to be provided within 30 days from the filling of the RTI Application.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to ensure that this information is put-up on the website in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, and also available in hard copy at its offices before 15 September 2009. It must also be ensure that this information is updated regularly. A compliance report will be sent to the Commission before 20 September 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 22 July 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)