Central Information Commission
Himal Chand vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 2 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/101151
Himal Chand .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Centre For Research in Rural
and Industrial Development,
2-A, Sector 19-A, Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh - 160019 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025
Date of Decision : 02.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 09.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 18.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"1) Whether the ICSSR has released part of salary grant to CRRID in August 2023 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
2) Whether the CRRID has fulfilled these conditions before the release of salary grant by the ICSSR as agreed by the CRRID.
3) If yes to points 1 and 2, kindly provide the copies of correspondence between ICSSR and CRRID in this regard.Page 1 of 9
4) Whether CRRID has complied with recommendations of CVC/ICSSR Enquiry Committee Report dated 29.05.2017, Fact Finding Committee report by the ICSSR dated 2022 and High Level Committee Report dated March 2023 as per the directions of ICSSR. If yes, kindly provide the copies of correspondence between ICSSR and CRRID in this regard."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.10.2023 stating as under:
"1. This is not request for seeking the information. Kindly be specific to the information
2. This is not request for seeking the information, Kindly be specific to the information.3. Please see at S No. 1 and 2
4 This is not request for seeking the information. Kindly be specific to the information.
This is further to inform you that the CRRID is not able to provide you the information due to extreme shortage of manpower. In the Civil Writ Petition No. 15363-2022, the Court held up all the activities at CRRID and direct the Director. CRRID not spend any amount on anything and there is no approval to fill the vacant posts by our Funding Agency."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.10.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
5. The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Minal Barua, CPIO-cum-Personal Assistant, attended the hearing through VC.
6. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
7. The Respondent submitted that that they do not receive any government financial assistance nor are aided by public funds and no Government Page 2 of 9 subsidy etc. is received by them. He added that CRRID has not received any grants from ICSSR. Hence CRRID is not a public authority and does not fall within the purview of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. He further placed reliance on a judgement dated 20.03.20235, passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of ICSSR vs. Neetu Garur & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 17595 of 2024, wherein it has been held that CRRID is not an authority under Article 12 of Constitution of India.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the primary question that needs to be addressed in this case is whether CRRID is a public authority as defined under the RTI Act or not. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines a public authority as under:-
Section 2(h): "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;
9. The aforementioned criteria, thus, laid down in the Act determine whether an organization qualifies to be a public authority or not. It is observed that there is no averment of the Appellant which indicates that the CRRID satisfies any of the criterion mentioned hereinabove to qualify as a public authority, as understood under the RTI Act.
10. The Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon a recent judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of ICSSR vs. Neetu Garur & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 17595 of 2024 dated 20.03.2025, CRRID is not an Page 3 of 9 authority under Article 12 of Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein:
"1. Xxx
2. Xxx
3. The appellant-Indian Council of Social Science Research (hereinafter 'ICSSR') before this Court is a society established in 1969 and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 but under the total financial and administrative control of Ministry of Education, Government of India ('GOI'). As per the Memorandum of Association of ICSSR, its objectives are as follows:
(i) reviewing the progress of social science research and giving advice to GOI and other users;
(ii) sponsoring social science research programs and administering grants to research institutions and individuals for research in social sciences, indicating areas and topics on which social science research is to be promoted;
(iii) advising GOI on all such matters pertaining to social science research etc. ICSSR consists of twenty-seven members including social scientists and ex-officio members from various departments and bodies of GOI. The chairman of ICSSR, appointed by GOI, has to be a person of national eminence in the field of social sciences with proven contributions to research. The funds of ICSSR consist of grants made by the GOI, contributions from other sources and income from the assets of ICSSR.
4. Respondent No.19-Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development (hereinafter 'CRRID') was established in the year 1978, and is an autonomous Research Institute in Chandigarh. It is registered as a scientific and educational charitable society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The working of CRRID is administered, directed and controlled by its main body. known as the Governing Body. This Governing Body of CRRID can have a maximum of twelve members including seven life members.
5. xxx
6. In the year 2015-2016, several complaints were received by ICSSR against CRRID alleging malpractices in the functioning of CRRID including violation of rules and regulations, and misuse of resources including the grants paid by ICSSR. Pursuant to these complaints, ICSSR constituted a committee to enquire into allegations against CRRID. The terms of reference of the Committee inter alia included:
Page 4 of 91. Recruitment/promotion of staff allegedly on the basis of fake degrees, placement of faculty to higher grades and grant of additional increments against MHRD norms.
2. Alleged violation of ICSSR Grant-in-Aid rules in amending MoA and its misuse by BOG members of CRRID for availing large benefits..
3. Audit objections particularly about the elevation of faculty/staff to higher grades.
4. Alleged discrepancies in the implementation of 6th CPC and submission of incorrect records for this purpose.
5. Issues related to alleged violation of service rules including retirement age.
6. Non-response of the queries forwarded by MHRD and other authorities of Govt. of India about CRRID.
7. Complaints about alleged violation of building bye-laws by CRRID.
8. Alleged nepotism and misuse of office facility and funds by Executive Vice Chairman of CRRID on purposeless abroad visits and visits within India.
9. Any other violation of ICSSR Grant-in-aid Rules applicable to the CRRID as mentioned in the complaint.
7. In its report dated 29.05.2017, the Committee highlighted various irregularities and malpractices within CRRID. CRRID was found to be in violation of its Rules as there were appointments of unqualified persons with either fake or dubious degrees. Promotions and increments of staff were also made against the norms. There were findings of non- maintenance of proper office records, etc. The Committee recommended several corrective measures to be taken by CRRID including the recovery of excess payments made by CRRID to some of its employees.
8. Thereafter, between 2017 and 2021, we have a long list of correspondence between ICSSR and CRRID about the implementation of the directions suggested by ICSSR largely to employ corrective measures including rectifying academic qualifications of the staff, recovering excess salaries paid to employees, taking action against guilty persons etc. In January 2021, CRRID had submitted an action-taken report to ICSSR. A Fact-Finding Committee was also constituted by ICSSR to enquire into the compliances by CRRID and this fact-finding committee concluded that CRRID Management has been non-cooperative and responses/compliances made by CRRID are evasive, ambiguous and incomplete. In sum and substance, ICSSR was not satisfied with the actions taken by CRRID and since CRRID did not submit its clarification as sought by ICSSR regarding deficiencies in the action-taken report, ICSSR Page 5 of 9 finally stopped releasing its grant in favour of CRRID April 2021 onwards. Once the grant was stopped by ICSSR, we are told that the Government of Punjab followed suit and stopped 45% of its share of grant to CRRID.
xxx...
13. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, to our mind, have erred in observing that since the governing body of CRRID had a nominee of ICSSR, ICSSR has a 'deep and pervasive control over the functioning of CRRID and ICSSR is equally at fault for irregularities within CRRID. In other words, the High Court was of the opinion that appointments were made on the posts sanctioned by ICSSR and with the approval of the Governing Body which consisted of a nominee of ICSSR, thus ICSSR is not justified in withholding the grant by alleging irregularities in such appointments or promotions. It is our respectful opinion that the High Court has not considered the matter in its right perspective.
14. We have gone through the Rules and Regulations of CRRID (hereinafter 'CRRID Rules') by which CRRID is governed as a society. As per Rule 22(a)(i) of the said Rules, the total number of members in the Governing Body cannot exceed twelve including the seven life members. Rule 22(d) provides the Governing Body to accept the nominees by the ICSSR or the State Governments in the society and the Governing Body. Here, the relevant portion of Rule 22(d) of CRRID Rules is reproduced below:
The Governing Body shall have the authority to accept the nominees in the Society and the Governing Body who are deputed by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) or the State Governments. Similarly, Rule 17 of Grant-in-Aid Rules of ICSSR, by which grants given by ICSSR are governed, read as follows:
17. Condition of Grants-in-Aid (Special):
A Research Institution which receives a recurring grant of Rs. One lakh or more shall be subject to the following additional conditions:
(1) ...
(2) The Council shall nominate not more than two representatives on the governing body of the research Institution. (3) ...
15. The learned Single Judge and the learned judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have considered the above provision to be amounting to a deep and pervasive control by the State! However, it is to be noted that the second part of Rule 22(d) of CRRID Rules empowers the Page 6 of 9 Governing Body to reject the names of nominees proposed by ICSSR or State Governments without giving any reason. It is like a proviso to the general part embodied under Rule 22(d) of CRRID Rules. It reads as follows:
The Governing Body shall, however, have the right to reject/or refer back to the deputing authorities the names of the proposed nominees(s) should it feel that the said nominee is not acceptable to the Governing Body. The Governing Body shall not be obliged to give the reason for rejecting or referring back any such name. This shows that CRRID is an autonomous body without much control of ICSSR. The Governing Body of CRRID has the authority to reject and refer back the names of proposed nominees and while doing so, CRRID is not even required to give any reasons.
16. The presence of one or even two members of ICSSR in a Governing Body of twelve does not amount to 'deep and pervasive' control of the State. Even assuming an additional two nominees from the Government of Punjab in the Governing Body will at best make four such members in a Governing Body of twelve. We have been informed that as of today there are only three nominees together from ICSSR and State of Punjab in all. This is not 'deep and pervasive' control.
17. We have no doubt in our mind that ICSSR is indeed an "authority", within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It also controls CRRID to an extent inasmuch as CRRID depends on the funds released by ICSSR as grants. But this itself cannot be called a deep and pervasive control. A deep and pervasive control would require much more than just financing an institution or a body. Even guiding, controlling or regulating affairs of an institution will not be called a 'deep and pervasive' control. The 'deep and pervasive' control requires administrative, financial and functional control of such a body to a much higher degree including interference into its day-to-day working, and mere regulatory control cannot mean 'deep and pervasive' control. [See: S.S Rana v. Registrar Coop. Societies and Anr. (2006) 11 SCC 634; Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT (1991) 4 SCC 578: Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy (2013) 8 SCC 345].
18. Moreover, the crucial question here is not whether the control exercised by ICSSR on CRRID is 'deep and pervasive' but whether ICSSR was justified in withholding its grant. CRRID has not answered this question with any degree of satisfaction. The High Court has also failed to address this crucial issue. Simply because ICSSR has some control over CRRID, it cannot be a reason for directing ICSSR to release the grants when it has been withheld for just and valid reasons. Once ICSSR gives its grant to CRRID it does not have much interference in the management of Page 7 of 9 these funds. Nor is the administration of CRRID controlled by ICSSR. CRRID, in any case, is not an authority within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Merely because CRRID is under the control of an authority (as defined under Article 12) will not make CRRID an authority. In fact, this is neither the case of the respondents-employees nor does CRRID in any manner assert itself as an Authority.
xxx...
21. Besides grants being discretionary, these Grant-in-Aid Rules and CRRID Rules also tell us something about the kind of control that ICSSR has over the CRRID. The only control that ICSSR has over CRRID is in the form of certain conditions under which grant-in-aid is provided to CRRID. Otherwise, there is no reason for ICSSR to assert any control over this autonomous private society i.e. CRRID and in fact, it is the essence of any private society registered under the Societies Registration Act, that societies should be governed and restricted only by its own Rules or some general principles of law applicable to all such societies. CRRID, therefore, has absolute authority over its financial as well as administrative matters. Thus, as far as 'deep and pervasive' control of ICSSR over CRRID is concerned, we are afraid that the findings of the High Court are totally misplaced. There is a very loose control over the large affairs of the CRRID, which would include both financial and administrative. The financial control by both ICSSR and the State of Punjab is limited only to their grant-in-aid. ICSSR does not have any power to interfere with the day-to-day functions of CRRID. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that CRRID is under a deep and pervasive' control of the State. At the same time, it cannot be denied that there is some control of the State in the form of the State of Punjab and ICSSR which is an instrumentality of State. But this control is not of such nature as to make it 'deep and pervasive' as has been held by the High Court. What ICSSR has in its control, definitely, is that it can stop the grant in case of violation of the conditions under which the grant is being given and this is exactly what has happened in the present case.
xxx..."
11. The Respondent during the hearing has confirmed that CRRID is neither substantially financed nor controlled or owned by the Government. While determining whether an organization falls within the ambit of the RTI Act, the Apex Court has made a very pertinent observation in the case of Page 8 of 9 Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others vs. State of Kerala and others [Civil Appeal No. 9017/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24290 of 2012)] vide decision dated 07.10.2013, which is as follows:
".....40. The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission as the case may be, when the question comes up for consideration..."
12. No materials have been made available by the Appellant to show that CRRID would fall within the definition of Section 2 (h) of the Act. In the given circumstances, it is therefore, held that CRRID will not fall within the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of ICSSR vs. Neetu Garur & Ors. in SLP (C) No. 17595 of 2024 dated 20.03.2025 and in the absence of materials to show that CRRID is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Centre For Research in Rural and Industrial Development, 2-A, Sector 19-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160019 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)