Central Information Commission
Neeraj Sharma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 6 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2021/625152
Shri Neeraj Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2022, 25.02.2025
Date of Decision : 08.07.2022, 04.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.01.2021
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 24.03.2021
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.06.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
2.1 "Please provide the details of Central public information officers and First Appellate Authority for the public authority "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" created with notification CG-DL-E-05022020-215935 dated 5 February 2020 by Govt. of India. According to RTI section 5 of RTI act CPIO & FAA should be appointed within 100 days.
2.2 Please also update the details of Central public information officers and First Appellate Authority for the public authority "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" on the website https://srjbtkshetra.org."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.03.2021 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 30.06.2022 has been received from the CPIO/DS(Arms & NI/Ayodhya) reiterating aforementioned PIO's reply. The Page 1 of 11 Appellant had filed an online First Appeal dated 24.02.2021 which had also been decided by FAA's order dated 08.03.2021 upholding the PIO's reply and stating that: CPIO is bound to provide only that information which is available with him. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing and in held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Public information officer in not supposed to create information or to do research on behalf of any citizen.
Records of the case reveal that the instant case with three other connected cases had been heard by the Bench of the erstwhile Chief Information Commission on 04.07.2022, and decided as under:
" Upon perusal of the facts of the case, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the reply of the PIO is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act because though information sought by the Applicant has not been provided to him, none of the provisions of the RTI Act has been cited for the tacit denial. Therefore, the reply sent by the PIO is found untenable in law. Under the circumstances, the Commission directs Shri Harish Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO and Dy Secretary, Arms and NI/ Ayodhya, M/o Home Affairs to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Applicant within three weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard alongwith necessary proof of service by 31.07.2022. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
The aforementioned cases are disposed off accordingly."
In compliance of the aforementioned directions of the Commission, the PIO, JKL Division/Ayodhya Section, MHA sent a communication dated 28.07.2022 to the Appellant stating as under:
(1) The information sought by you is not held in this office. (2) Further, section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 defines "Public Authority" as 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 -
(1) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
3. The Trust has been constituted as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in its judgment dated 09.11.2019 in C.A. No. 10866-67 of 2010 and registered on 05.02.2020. The said Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is a body which is neither owned, controlled nor financed by Government of India; and is an independent and autonomous organization/body itself. As such, it does not fall within the definition of public authority as given in section of 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the RTI applications in question cannot be transferred to the trust under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 2 of 11The Appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi filing writ petition No. WP(C) No. 17602/2024 impugning the aforementioned order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Commission and the compliance thereof vide PIO's letter dated 28.07.2022. The Hon'ble Court disposed the Writ petition vide order dated 20.12.2024 in the following manner:
(a) The CIC shall consider and decide the question as to whether the Trust named "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(b) The aforenoted decision shall be rendered by the CIC, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the Petitioner as well as Respondents No. 1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible.
The Respondent - CPIO, JKL Division, Ayodhya Section, MHA has sent a communication dated 20.02.2025 reiterating the chronological sequence of aforementioned events and added as under:
"10. it is pertinent to mention here that as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in its judgment dated 09.11.2019 in C.A. No. 10866-67 of 2010, Central Government has formulated the Scheme envisaging setting up of the Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust with Board of Trustees etc. without any financial, administrative or other interference either of the Central Government or of the State Government. The Central Government has become the Settler of the Trust in view of the directions contained in para 805(2)(i) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.11.2019 and shall not be construed as the Central Government to have any financial, administrative or other stake either in the functioning or any other activity of the Trust.
11. It is reiterated that Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is an independent trust. This trust is neither owned, controlled nor financed by the government. Further, either Central Government or the State Government does not release any funds to the Trust. The Government does not have any administrative or financial stake in the Trust. Constitution of the Trust was the only role played by the Government, which was carried out in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the Trust is an Independent organization without any financial support or administrative control of either the Central Government or the State Government, the Trust will not come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: 25.02.2025 I. The Respondent - CPIO, JKL Division, Ayodhya Section, MHA has sent a communication dated 20.02.2025 reiterating the chronological sequence of aforementioned events, the compliance of the Commission's order dated 04.07.2022 by the PIO's communication dated 28.07.2022 and added as under:
"10. it is pertinent to mention here that as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in its judgment dated 09.11.2019 in C.A. No. 10866-67 of 2010, Central Government has formulated the Scheme envisaging setting up of the Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust with Board of Trustees etc. without any financial, administrative or other interference either of the Central Government or of the State Government. The Central Government has become the Settler of the Trust in view of the directions contained in para 805(2)(i) of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.11.2019 and shall not be construed as the Central Page 3 of 11 Government to have any financial, administrative or other stake either in the functioning or any other activity of the Trust.
11. It is reiterated that Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is an independent trust. This trust is neither owned, controlled nor financed by the government. Further, either Central Government or the State Government does not release any funds to the Trust. The Government does not have any administrative or financial stake in the Trust. Constitution of the Trust was the only role played by the Government, which was carried out in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the Trust is an Independent organization without any financial support or administrative control of either the Central Government or the State Government, the Trust will not come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 II. A combined written submission dated 21.02.2025 with respect to the four related cases has been filed by the Advocate representing the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust[hereinafter referred to as the "Trust"] stating as under:
"It is submitted that the Trust is creation of a trust deed. It is neither established not constituted by a notification of the Government. It is not directly or indirectly funded/financed by the Government. In fact, the notification of the government directs that all rights, title and interests in the acquired land vests in the Trust.
It is needless to say that the Trust is neither established not constituted under the Constitution or by any law made by the Parliament or State Legislature.
It is further submitted that neither the nominees of the government nor the District Collector have any voting rights in the meetings of the Trust. In the event of any vacancy arising in the trustees who are not nominated by the government; it is only the non-government-nominated trustees to fill such vacancy by a majority resolution.
In view of the above, it is clear that Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is not bound to comply with the provisions of the said Act. Accordingly it is prayed that all the complaint(s) and appeal(s) in this regard may kindly be dismissed.
The answering Respondent representing the Trust has sought a change of address for communication to Accounts Office, Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Mandir Nirman Karyashala, Ramghat Chauraha, Ayodhya.
III. The Appellant has also filed a combined written submission dated 27.02.2025 rebutting the Respondent's contentions stating that the Trust in question falls within the categories of bodies which qualify to be Public Authorities under the RTI Act. It has been stated by the Complainant that:
"..It is submitted that Section 2(h) of the RTI Act lays down 6 distinct categories and if a body falls within any of those categories, it would qualify to be public authority under the RTI Act. Clauses (a) to (d) and clauses (i) and (ii) are distinct. Clauses (i) and (ii) are not meant to be read in conjunction with clause (d), rather they represent distinct and additional categories. Therefore, if a body qualifies under clause (d) it is not necessary that it also qualify under (i) and (ii) and similarly if a body qualifies under (i) or (ii), it is not necessary that it also qualify under clause (d). This was also the interpretation of the Supreme Court in its judgement in D.A.V. College Trust And Managing ... vs Director Of Public Instructions dated 17 September, 2019 (relevant paragraphs reproduced Page 4 of 11 below). Therefore, it is submitted that the CIC has to determine whether the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust (henceforth referred to as 'Trust') falls within any one or more of those 6 categories under Section 2(h) III A. The Appellant has further contended that:
a. Trust's Website Explicitly states that it was set up by the Central Government b. Response by MHA stating that Trust has been constituted by Government of India Further, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in its written submission dated 20-feb2025, has itself stated that the "Central Government has formulated the Scheme envisaging setting up of the Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust with Board of Trustees etc." Refer point number 10 and "Constitution of the Trust was the only role played by the Government: which was carried out in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
c. Publicly Available information regarding the Constitution of the Trust Gazette Notification No. CG-DL-E-05022020-215935 dated 05th February 2020 states inter alia:
..in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 9th November, 2019 the Government of India has approved the Scheme, vide, Order No. 71011/02/2019-AY dated 5th February, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) and the said Scheme has made necessary provisions in regard to functioning of the trust including matters relating to management of the trust, powers of the trustees including construction of the temple and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters thereto.
AND WHEREAS in accordance with the said Scheme, a Trust by the name "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust) has been registered.
III B. Discussing the aspect of Government control and funding of the Trust, the Appellant has stated that:
a. Central government scheme to regulate functioning and management of the Trust and also powers of trustees:- the Central government exercises control over the functioning and management of the Trust and powers of the Trustees and thus the Trust would be a public authority under clause (i) of section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
b. Nominations of members of the Trust by the Government Confirms Government Control:- The Trust's website further reveals that out of 15 members of the Trust, 12 members were nominated by the Government of India and during the first meeting additional 3 members were selected. (Refer the annexure A1) Thus, 80% of the members of the Trust were nominated by the government and this shows government control over the Trust and therefore it falls within the ambit of clause (i) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. A majority of trustees are appointed by the government, making it accountable under RTI provisions.
c. Central Government Transferred Land to the Trust showing Substantial Financing by the government: Central Government transferred nearly 70 acres of land to the Trust. This land was vested in the Central government and therefore, this transfer of public property amounts to substantial finance as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
d. Management of property by Government: the property vested in the Central Government under section 3 shall be managed by the Central Government or Page 5 of 11 by a person or body of persons or trustees of any trust authorised by that Government in this behalf.
The Appellant has referred to the decision in the case of National Stock Exchange vs. CIC decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, whereby the Petitioner National Stock Exchange was held a public authority or institution of self- government constituted or established by notification or order issued by the appropriate Government. It was also held that the petitioner is controlled by the appropriate Government.
IV. The Advocate representing the Trust has filed another written submission dated 07.03.2025 contending that the Trust in question was created under a Trust Deed, as per directions of the Supreme Court; it was neither established nor constituted per se by the Government. The Trust is neither owned nor controlled or substantially financed or funded, directly or indirectly by the Government. Hence the Trust does not fall within the ambit of the Section 2(h)(d)(i) or (ii) of the RTI Act. The Trust has been created as a self operating body whose management or functioning is decided by the Trust itself.
Reliance has been placed on the fourth para of the notification dated 05.02.2020 notes the fact that the Trust was registered, pursuant to which the notification was issued. The Respondent has further stated that the above said notification serves twin purposes:
(i) The Central Govt, after consultation with the State Govt of Uttar Pradesh, decides to effectuate the allotment of a suitable land admeasuring five acres to Sunni Waqf Board.
(ii) The Central Govt directs that all rights, title and interests in relation to the entire acquired area shall vest in the Trust.
Vesting of land can by no stretch of imagination be equated to constituting the Trust.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present with Ms. Amrita Johri Respondent: Shi P Venukuttan - DS and Shri K R Murmu - US, MHA and Ms. Manisha Agarwal - Advocate for the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust were present during hearing.
Parties present during hearing reiterated their respective contentions as already narrated in their respective written submissions mentioned hereinabove.
Decision: 04.06.2025 The question which needs adjudication in the instant appeal, is whether the "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" (hereinafter referred to as the Trust will fall within the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the RTI Act") and be bound by the obligations to provide information sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act.
At the very outset the definition of public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act needs to be revisited, which is as under:
Page 6 of 11Section 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 organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
A. Creation of the Trust:
It is an undisputed fact as per the Gazette Notification No. CG-DL-E-05022020- 215935 dated 05th February 2020 about the Constitution of the Trust that:
..in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 9th November, 2019 the Government of India has approved the Scheme, vide, Order No. 71011/02/2019-AY dated 5th February, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) and the said Scheme has made necessary provisions in regard to functioning of the trust including matters relating to management of the trust, powers of the trustees including construction of the temple and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters thereto.
Thus there is no ambiguity with the fact that the Trust was created as per the directions contained in para 805(2)(i) of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 09.11.2019 in C.A. No. 10866-67 of 2010. In compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court, the Central Government formulated a Scheme envisaging setting up of the Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust with Board of Trustees etc. The Trust is creation of a trust deed. It was neither established nor constituted by any notification of the Government, nor under the Constitution of India or by any law made by the Parliament or State Legislature. The notification dated 05.02.2020 issued by the Government of India is explicit and clearly states as under:
"the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 9th November, 2019 in its Judgement, has directed that the Central Government shall, within a period of three months from the date of the Judgement, formulate a scheme pursuant to the powers vested in it under sections 6 and 7 of the said Act. AND WHEREAS in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 9th November, 2019, the Government of India has approved the Scheme, vide, Order No. 71011/02/2019-AY dated 5th February, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) and the said Scheme has made necessary provisions in regard to functioning of the trust including matters relating to management of the trust, powers of the trustees including construction of the temple and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters thereto.
AND WHEREAS in accordance with the said Scheme, a Trust by the name "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust) ...
AND WHEREAS in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, possession of the inner and outer courtyards of the disputed site shall be handed over to the said Trust and the Central Government is at liberty to Page 7 of 11 make suitable provisions in respect to the rest of the acquired land by handing it over to the said Trust for management and development in terms of the Scheme framed by the Central Government.................. in compliance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 9th November, 2019 in the matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010 and other connected appeals, the Central Government, being satisfied that the Trust, namely Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra set up on 5th February, 2020 is willing to comply with such terms and conditions specified in the said Scheme, directs that all rights, title and interests in relation to the entire area acquired under the Schedule to the said Act, including the inner and outer courtyard of the disputed site shall vest in the said Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra from the date this notification is published in the Official Gazette.
The representative for the Appellant has submitted in her written submissions that: "the Trust in question was set up by the Central Government", which overlooks the fact that the Central Government set up the Trust in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The creation of the Trust was actually an action in compliance of the direction of the Apex Court, not initiated suo motu by the Central Government.
The creation of the Trust in question was in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, not (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. On this premise therefore, the Trust does not qualify as a public authority, under the legal specifications as laid down under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
B. Control and management:
The aforementioned records reveal that it has been repeatedly stated by the MHA as well as the Trust that the trust is neither owned, controlled nor financed by the Government. In compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court, a Scheme was formulated which has made necessary provisions in regard to functioning of the trust including matters relating to management of the trust, powers of the trustees including construction of the temple and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters thereto. In so far as administrative or financial stake in the Trust is concerned, by virtue of being an independent body, the Government has no stake in the Trust. Constitution of the Trust was the only role played by the Government, in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
A perusal of the information available about the Trust in public domain also reveals that the temple trust set up by the government was initially headed by Shri K Parasaran, Sr. Advocate who was tasked to nominate the remaining members and on 19 February 2020, the Trust nominated its members and elected Mahant Nrityagopal Das as the Chairman. In fact, as per the information available about the Trust, it is noteworthy that among the permanent members of the Trust apart from the senior lawyer who represented the Trust in the Court, four other members are religious leaders from various temples across the country, one member is a representative from the Nirmohi Akhara, two are prominent civilians of Ayodhya and one a Dalit representative. The nominees of the Government or the District Collector have no voting rights in the meetings of the Page 8 of 11 Trust. In the event of any vacancy arising in the Trust, trustees are not nominated by the government; it is only the non-government-nominated trustees who fill such vacancy by a majority resolution.
With no financial contribution from either Central or State Government neither voting rights of Government nominated members, the only role of the Government is limited to Constitution of the Trust, which was also in compliance of the directions of the Apex Court. It is important to keep in mind that simply because of existence of Government officials as members a Trust, one cannot automatically deduce that the Trust or any body is controlled by the Government. The above facts specify that the Trust was not created by a Statute nor is it a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of a Statute. It has not been shown before us that the Government exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the Society for deep and pervasive control. For a better insight into the aspect of "body owned, controlled"
as defined under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act, reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision dated 07.10.2013 in the case of Thalappalam Services Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs State Of Kerala & Ors. 2013 (16) SCC 82 "We are of the opinion that when we test the meaning of expression "controlled" which figures in between the words "body owned" and "substantially financed", the control by the appropriate government must be a control of a substantial nature. The mere 'supervision' or 'regulation' as such by a statute or otherwise of a body would not make that body a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. In other words just like a body owned or body substantially financed by the appropriate government, the control of the body by the appropriate government would also be substantial and not merely supervisory or regulatory. .............
35. We are, therefore, of the view that the word "controlled" used in Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act has to be understood in the context in which it has been used vis-a-vis a body owned or substantially financed by the appropriate government, that is the control of the body is of such a degree which amounts to substantial control over the management and affairs of the body."
Applying the above legal principle to the facts of this case, the aspect of deep and pervasive control of the Government over the Trust in question has not been established.
C. Substantial finance The next question to be examined is whether the petitioner is substantially financed by the appropriate Government. It has been stated that neither Central Government nor the State Government release any funds to the Trust. Clearly there is no material to indicate that the Trust has been directly or indirectly funded by the appropriate Government, nor is there any evidence to indicate that any of the funds received by the Trust owed their source to either the Central Government or the State Government, the argument put forth by the Appellant is: Central Government Transferred Land to the Trust showing Substantial Financing by the government: Central Government transferred nearly 70 acres of land to the Trust. This land was vested in the Central government and therefore, this transfer of public property amounts to substantial finance as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Page 9 of 11On the other hand, the gazette notification dated 05.02.2020 clearly states:
in compliance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 9th November, 2019 in the matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010 and other connected appeals, the Central Government, being satisfied that the Trust, namely Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra set up on 5th February, 2020 is willing to comply with such terms and conditions specified in the said Scheme, directs that all rights, title and interests in relation to the entire area acquired under the Schedule to the said Act, including the inner and outer courtyard of the disputed site shall vest in the said Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra from the date this notification is published in the Official Gazette emphasis supplied The website of the Trust reveals that the Trust was awarded 2.77-acre land as well as the 67.703-acre land acquired under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 following the Supreme Court verdict in this regard. The land was duly purchased from landowners and not granted by the Government, payments were done in a transparent manner directly to the bank account of those whose land had been purchased by the Trust. The taxes payable to the Government by any other similarly placed Trust are regularly done without exemption.
Thus the question of substantial funding is also not applicable in this case.
Conclusion: The aforesaid discussion clarifies that the conditions discussed in the Section 2(h) (a) to (d) of the RTI Act dealing with the creation of the organisation do not apply to this Trust. The sub categories of Section 2(h)(d)(iii) lay down the specific conditions of "body owned, controlled or substantially financed" which also do not apply to this Trust, as discussed hereinabove in details. The Trust definitely not qualify as an NGO and hence the does not fall in the category of organisation discussed under Section 2(h)(d)(iii) of the RTI Act also. Hence, upon dissection of each sub clause of the Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, it is clear that the Trust in question does not fall within the definition of "public authority" as envisaged under the RTI Act. Putting the facts of this case, through a last test against the touch stone of the landmark decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. etc [1981 AIR 487 decided on 13.11.1980] wherein the question whether a body is financially, functionally, administratively dominated, by or under the control of the Government has been discussed. The Constitution Bench judgment wherein P.N. Bhagwati, J. spoke for the Court, laid down the test and summarised them as under:
"......(1) .... if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character.
(3) It may also be a relevant factor whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State-conferred or State-
protected.
Page 10 of 11(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(6) Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference' of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government...."
The aforementioned tests when applied against the facts of the instant case, clearly establish that none of the features among the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, exist in the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, viz. 1) a monopoly status which is State conferred,; 2) Existence of deep and pervasive State control, 3) functions are of public importance and closely related to Governmental function..".
In conclusion of the discussion, the Commission notes that in the absence of any substantial evidence to establish beyond doubt that the Trust is a body 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, the status of public authority cannot be given to the Trust.
In the light of the foregoing discussions, the Commission holds that the Respondent viz. Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is not a public authority as it does not conform to the criteria laid down under the Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Trust is an independent organization, created as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it owes no financial support or administrative control from either the Central Government or the State Government, hence, the Trust will not come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appeal is disposed of with the above observation.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)