Prabhakar Kaushik vs Department Of Urban Development on 10 November, 2025

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Prabhakar Kaushik vs Department Of Urban Development on 10 November, 2025

केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/DOURD/C/2020/107484

Prabhakar Kaushik ....निकायतकताग /Complainant

VERSUS
बनाम

1. PIO,
Assistant Registrar, Office of the
Registrar Cooperative Societies,
Old Court Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi -110001.

2. PIO
Chief Executive Officer,
Youth Hostels Association of India.
5, Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi - 110021

3. PIO
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Department of Youth Affairs,
Youth Hostel Section, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi -110001.

4. PIO
Deputy L & DO, Ministry of
Housing & Urban Affairs, A Wing,
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi - 110011.

5. PIO
RTI Cell, New Delhi Municipal Council,
Ground Floor, Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001

Page 1 of 38
6. PIO
Income Tax Officer (E)-1,
Office of the DGIT(E),
Room No. 2508, Dr. S.P.M.
Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002.

7. PIO
Commissioner of Industries,
419, F.I.E., Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Date of First Hearing 13.10.2021
First Interim Decision 17.11.2021
Date of Second Hearing 07.06.2024
Second Interim Decision 12.06.2024
Date of Third Hearing 26.05.2025
Third Interim Decision 24.06.2025
Thereafter the matter was referred to larger Bench vide order dated
24.06.2025. Accordingly, the Division Bench was formed, and matter was
listed for hearing on 03.09.2025
Date of Fourth Hearing 03.09.2025
Fourth Interim Decision 04.11.2025

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 07.12.2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.02.2020

Information sought

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.12.2019 seeking the following information:

1. "Provide copies of Election Notifications in newspapers, website, emails etc. for elections to the Units and State Branch of Delhi held, last.

2. Had eligible members were sent election notice to participate in UNIT/State Election, If yes, details thereof.

Page 2 of 38

3. Unit-wise and post-wise details of a) candidates filled nominations b) Venue of election c) vote casted, and d) persons elected to the Units and State Branch.

4. Details of nominations received, found in order and rejected at Unit and State level.

5. Details of persons who are part of election process to the Units and State of Delhi.

6. Details of expenditures made in the election to Units and State of Delhi.

7. Details of participants died in trekking programme of YHAI during 2018.

Reasons thereof and action taken by the authorities in the matter.

8. Details of legal matters filed by the association and vice versa/against the association as on date and expenses incurred since January 2015.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 13.10.2021:

"The following were present: -

Complainant: Present in person Respondent: (1) Raj Kumar, Section Officer & Rep. of PIO, Registrar of Society (Central) (2) Mr. Narendra Yadav, Counsel for CEO, Youth Hostel Association The matter was heard by the Bench and after taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, following interim order dated 17.11.2021 was passed:

"Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that it is the complaint of the complainant that the Youth Hostels Association of India must be declared public authority for the reasons stated in his written submission dated 18.10.2021. Further, the complainant laid emphasis on previous order of this Commission in File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000018, dated 08.09.2015 wherein similar matter was dealt at length.

The proceedings and ratio laid down in the File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000018, dated 08.09.2015 is produced herein below:

Page 3 of 38

This matter pertains to two RTI applications dated 10.10.2013 and 22.10.2013 filed by the Complainant, seeking information on various points from Youth Hostels Association of India (YHAI). The CPIO responded on 4.11.2013 and stated that YHAI is not covered under RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Complainant filed complaint dated 10.12.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission the same day.

Hearing on 20.11.2014

2. The Complainant submitted that denial of information by the Respondents, on the ground that they are not covered under the RTI Act, is wrong. He further submitted that the Respondents are a society registered with the Registrar of Societies and an area of land was allotted by L&DO to them for construction of Youth Hostel in the Diplomatic Enclave in New Delhi. The Complainant also stated that the Respondents get grants from Central Govt. for construction of buildings and repairs etc. and also get tax exemptions from various authorities. He stated that they also get land from state governments for construction of their buildings. The Respondents submitted that their chief executive officer and Chairman could not come to attend the hearing due to their elections in December 2014.

3. Having carefully considered the records and the submissions made before us, we direct the Respondents to provide to the Commission the following information concerning YHAI, at least fifteen days in advance of the next date of hearing, with a copy to the Appellant:-

(a) Their memorandum of Association, rules, regulations and bye-laws.

(b) Details of all direct or indirect grants, subsidies and land (with details of the area, terms on which allotted and date of allotment etc.), tax concessions permitted by Centre or State Governments and any direct or indirect financing from the Government.

(c) Balance sheets and P&L. accounts of the Respondents for the last three years showing details of their revenue and its sources; as well as expenditure.

The Complainant should also send his written submissions, if any, at least one week in advance of the next date of hearing, with a copy to the Respondents.

Page 4 of 38

4. We will hear this matter again on 23 January 2015 at 10.10 A.M. at Room No. 305, 2 Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.

Hearing on 28.1.2015

5. The matter came up before us again today. The Respondents submitted to us during the hearing certain documents in response to our directive contained in paragraph 3 above. However, they have not submitted any information regarding the land acquired by them in various parts of the country from government agencies and the terms on which it has been acquired.

6. The Complainant has also submitted his written submissions dated 20.1.2015.

7. Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, Chief Executive Officer stated that in the elections, which took place in December 2014, new office bearers have been elected and that the new President and the Chairman have agreed in principle to treat the Youth Hostel Association of India as a public authority under the RTI Act. He further submitted that the matter would be put up for approval to the National Executive Committee, which is to meet on April 11-12, 2015. He also stated that the Association will submit a letter to the above effect to the Commission in a week.

9. The matter came up again today. Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, Chief Executive Officer handed over to us a copy of the letter dated 20.4.2015 from the Respondents, which states, inter alia, that the matter to declare YHAI as a public organization" was put up for consideration of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of YHAI in its meeting held on 11.4.2015 and that the NEC has constituted a committee to review whether YHAI could be declared as a "public organization". Enclosed with the above letter dated 20.4.2015 are two separate letters dated 24.3.2015 and 6.4.2015, addressed to the Commission by Shri S. Venkat Narayanan, National Chairman and Shri Mohd. Shafi Pandit, National President respectively of YHAI, stating that they are agreed in principle to declare YHAI as a "public organization". Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, CEO further stated that after a decision is taken by the NEC, it will have to be confirmed by the National Council of YHAI.

Page 5 of 38

10. We have considered the submissions made by the representative of the Respondents. It is seen that while the issue before us is whether YHAI is a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, the Respondents are considering whether YHAI could be declared as a "public organization" an expression not related to the RTI Act and there is no certainty even concerning the same. In view of the foregoing, we would not like to postpone the consideration of this matter by the Commission any further. Accordingly, it is adjourned to be heard again on 15 June 2015 at 10.15 A.M, at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi- 110066. The Respondents are directed to provide to the Commission the details of all the direct or indirect grants, subsidies and land, given to them by the Government of India or the State Governments, together with details of the land area, terms on which allotted and date of allotment etc.; as well as details of any other direct or indirect financing from the government. It is noted that this information has not been provided in spite of the directive contained in paragraph 3 of our interim order dated 20.11.2014. The written submissions of the Respondents concerning the above should reach the Commission's office latest by 28.5.2015.

The Complainant may also file his written submissions, if any, so as to reach the Commission's office latest by 28.5.2015. By virtue of the power vested in us under Section 18 (3) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005, we direct Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, CEO to be present during the next hearing on 15.6.2015.

Hearing on 15.6.2015

11. The matter came up again today. The Respondents were absent in spite of a written notice having been sent to them. The Complainant submitted that in response to the directives given on 5.5.2015, he filed his written submissions dated 27.5.2015 to the Commission stating the following to establish that the Respondents are a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act:

(i) Youth Hostel Association of India (YHAI) is registered with Registrar of Societies in 1955-56 vide registration No. S-932.

Page 6 of 38

(ii) YHAI has been allotted government / public land by Ministry of Urban Development (L&DO) in Diplomatic Area, New Delhi for its office and hostel.

(iii) YHAI has got government land in other states like Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra also.

(iv) YHAI has received financial aid/grants from Central Government for.

8. In view of the foregoing, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 5th May. 2015 at 10.00 a.m. at Room No. 305, 2 Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110066. In the meanwhile, the Respondents are directed to forward to the Commission a list of plots of land, if any, acquired by the Association from government agencies in various parts of the country, together with the details of the terms and conditions under which land has been acquired in these cases. This information should reach the Commission's office latest by 28.2.2015.

Hearing on 5.5.2015

9. The matter came up again today. Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, Chief Executive Officer handed over to us a copy of the letter dated 20.4.2015 from the Respondents, which states, inter alia, that the matter to declare YHAI as a "public organization" was put up for consideration of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of YHAI in its meeting held on 11.4.2015 and that the NEC has constituted a committee to review whether YHAI could be declared as a "public organization". Enclosed with the above letter dated 20.4.2015 are two separate letters dated 24.3.2015 and 6.4.2015, addressed to the Commission by Shri S. Venkat Narayanan, National Chairman and Shri Mohd. Shafi Pandit, National President respectively of YHAI, stating that they are agreed in principle to declare YHAI as a "public organization". Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, CEO further stated that after a decision is taken by NEC, it will have to be confirmed by the National Council of YHAI.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the representative of the Respondents. It is seen that while the issue before us is whether YHAI is a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, the Respondents are considering whether YHAI could be declared as a public organization" an Page 7 of 38 expression not related to the RTI Act and there is no certainty even concerning the same. In view of the foregoing, we would not like to postpone the consideration of this matter by the Commission any further. Accordingly, it is adjourned to be heard again on 15th June 2015 at 10.15 a.m, at Room No. 305, 2 Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi- 110066. The Respondents are directed to provide to the Commission the details of all the direct or indirect grants, subsidies and land, given to them by the Government of India or the State Governments, together with details of the land area, terms on which allotted and date of allotment etc.; as well as details of any other direct or indirect financing from the government. It is noted that this information has not been provided in spite of the directive contained in paragraph 3 of our interim order dated 20.11.2014. The written submissions of the Respondents concerning the above should reach the Commission's office latest by 28.5.2015. The Complainant may also file his written submissions, if any, so as to reach the Commission's office latest by 28.5.2015. By virtue of the power vested in us under Section 18 (3) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005, we direct Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, CEO, to be present during the next hearing on 15.6.2015.

Hearing on 15.6.2015

(i) Youth Hostel Association of India (YHAI) is registered with Registrar of Societies in 1955-56 vide registration No. S-932.

(ii) YHAI has been allotted government public land by Ministry of Urban Development (L&DO) in Diplomatic Area, New Delhi for its office and hostel.

(iii) YHAI has got government land in other states like Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra also.

(iv) YHAI has received financial aid grants from Central Government for construction of its buildings, procurement of equipment etc. Page 8 of 38

(v) Number of grants/ for exemptions/rebates on various items like LPG, rail fare, income tax department, NDMC etc. are available to the YHAI.

(vi) The Central Government employees have been availing financial aid and special casual leave for joining YHAI programmes. The YHAI has been conducting adventure programmes like tracking etc. and issuing membership to the public.

(vii) YHAI is engaged in lodging, boarding etc. to the public/youth hostellers.

(viii)YHAI has been issuing certificates to the public for joining its adventures programmes.

(ix) YHAI is issuing certificates to the Government Servants to avail special causal leave.

(x) YHAI is an ISO 9001:2008 certified organization, affiliated to Hostelling International, U.K.

(xi) YHAI is claiming President of India as its Chief Patron. The President Secretariat is providing information to the pubic under RTI Act.

(xi) YHAI is claiming President of India as its 'Chief Patron. The President Secretariat is providing information to the pubic under RTI Act.

We note that the Complainant provided the copies of documents in support of his contention in respect of points at (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (viii), (x) and (xi), but no documents have been submitted in support of the other points. The Complainant is advised to submit. copies of documentary evidences in support of his submissions, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order. The Respondents submitted their written submissions dated 27.5.2015 along with a copy of allotment letter dated 28.2.1970 in respect of land allotted to them in Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi by L&DO Office. They have further stated that they have not received any direct or indirect grant or any subsidy from the Central or Statement Government. With regard to tax concessions, they are assessed under section 11 read with section 12 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, which is applicable to all non- profit/charitable institutions. With regard to the land, it is stated that they Page 9 of 38 have not acquired any land subsidized or funded by Government of India or any State Government.

12. We have considered the written submissions made by both the parties. The Respondents have not provided the details of land given to them by State Governments, as directed by us in paragraph 10 above. We note that in the balance sheets submitted by them on 21.1.2015, government grants are outstanding to the extent of Rs. 68.63 lacs, whereas in their written submissions, it is stated that no grants have been received. We also note that in the Memorandum, Rules & Regulations of Association, names of some Government officers are found in Management of the Association.

13. In view of the foregoing, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 20.7.2015 at 2.00 P.M, at Room No. 305, 2 Floor B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. The Respondents are directed to submit to the Commission documents/ clarifications on the points mentioned in paragraph 12 above, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order. If the Respondents fail to provide documents/clarifications as directed above or fail to appear on the date of hearing mentioned above. The matter will be heard and decided on the strength of the material available on record.

Hearing on 20.7.2015

14. The matter came up again on 20.7.2015. The Respondents were not present during the last hearing on 15.6.2015. Subsequently, on 22.6.2015, Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, CEO wrote to the Commission stating that he could not be present on 15.6.2015 due to bereavement in his family and praying for giving the Respondents another opportunity to represent in the matter. In spite of the above, the Respondents were not present during the hearing on 20.7.2015. They have also not complied with the directive contained in paragraph 12 above to provide the details of land given to them by State Governments. Further, in their letter dated 27.5.2015 to the Commission, the Respondents stated that they had not received any direct or indirect grant or subsidy from the Central or the State Governments. However, it is seen from the schedules to Financial Statements as on 31.3.2014, submitted by the Respondents, that the balance of Government grants as per the last balance sheet was Rs. 68,63,056. Further, the Complainant has submitted to the Page 10 of 38 Commission copies of the orders No. F.2-2/87- YH/YS IV dated 27.3.1990 and F.2-2/RT-YH/YS-IV dated 28.2.1996 vide which funds to the tune of Rs. 32.5 lakhs and 19.64 lakhs were released by the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports to the Respondents for the repairs/white washing of the Youth Hostel Building in Delhi and additional construction at the existing building. The above information contradicts the statement of the Respondents that they have been receiving no direct or indirect grant from the Central Government. Moreover, in the Schedules to Financial Statements as on 31.3.2014, the value of land and building has been shown as Rs. 10,90,433. In this context, the only information provided to the Commission by the Respondents is regarding allotment of land, measuring 0,873 acre, to them on lease hold in the Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi by the Land & Development Office in 1970 at a cost of Rs. 36,000/-, plus an annual ground rent of 5% per annum thereon. The Complainant submitted during the hearing that the Respondents are getting not only income tax rebate, but also tax concessions from NDMC. He further submitted that they have Youth Hostels in various States, many of which are functioning on the basis of a franchise given to local hotels; however, they also have buildings of their own in some States. On account of the absence of the Respondents during the last two hearings, the fact that they have failed to provide a part of the information sought by the Commission and the contradictions concerning the information provided by them, mentioned above, the Commission considers it necessary to get all the relevant information, concerning the grants and concessions etc. enjoyed by the Respondents, from the concerned Ministries/ Departments/ Organizations. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 8 September, 2015 at 2.00 p.m., at Room No. 305, 2 Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110066. The following CPIOs should also be present at the hearing on 8.9.2015 along with the information, available on their records on the issues mentioned against them:-

(1) CPIO of the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports: Information concerning the land allotted by the Central or State Governments to the Respondents in various parts of the country, together with the terms and conditions of allotment, grants/ subsidies provided to the Respondents by the Government from time to time, the role of the nominee of the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports and nominees of other Government Departments on the National Council of Youth Hostels Association of India and information concerning any other concessions given by the Government to the Respondents Page 11 of 38

(ii) CPIO of the Land & Development Office of the Ministry of Urban Development: Information concerning the commercial rate of land in the Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi and adjoining areas, prevalent in 1970, when land was allotted to the Respondents as per Order No. LII-1(89)/69 dated 28.2.1970, the amount of annual ground rent being charged from the Respondents at the moment and the currently prevailing commercial value of land in the above areas.

(iii) CPIO of NDMC: Information concerning the tax and other concessions given to the Respondents by the NDMC over the last three years.

(iv)Smt. Shashi Kanta Soni, CPIO, Income Tax Officer (E)-I: Information concerning the quantum of tax rebates/concessions given to the Respondents over the last three years.

15. The Registry is directed to forward copies of this order by name, besides the Complainant and the Respondents, to the CPIOs mentioned at paragraph 14 (i) to (iv) above.

..( Proceedings and ratio of the decision reproduced Verbatim) Adverting to the supra, this bench of the Commission is of the opinion that the instant matter has already been dealt at length by predecessor bench, however, same could not reach any logical end due to abrupt withdrawal of the said complaint by the complainant of the referred matter.

Nevertheless, Commission for better clarity of the matter and to gather all relevant information, concerning the grants and concessions etc. enjoyed by the Respondent no. 2 from the concerned Ministries / Departments/ Organizations finds it expedient to adjourn the matter for closed scrutiny of records and thereafter to hear the instant matter again at length. In doing so, Commission directs the registry of this bench to affix a fresh date of hearing and communicate the same to all the parties in advance. Further, the following PIOs should also be present at the next date of hearing along with the information, available on their records, on the issues mentioned against them.

Page 12 of 38

i) CPIO of the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports: Information concerning the land allotted by the Central or State Governments to the Respondents in various parts of the country, together with the terms and conditions of allotment, grants / subsidies provided to the Respondent no.2 (Youth Hostel Association) by the Government from time to time, the role of the nominee of the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports and nominees of other Government Departments on the National Council of Youth Hostels Association of India and information concerning any other concessions given by the Government to the said Respondent.

ii) Further, CPIO of the Land & Development Office of the Ministry of Urban Development: Information concerning the commercial rate of land in the Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi and adjoining areas, prevalent in 1970, when land was allotted to the Respondent no.2 (Youth Hostel Association) as per Order No. L.II1 (89)/69 dated 28.2.1970, the amount of annual ground rent being charged from the said Respondents at the moment and the currently prevailing commercial value of land in the above areas.

iii) PIO of NDMC: Information concerning the tax and other concessions given to the Respondent no.2 (Youth Hostel Association) by the NDMC over the last 3 years.

iv) PIO, Income Tax Officer (E)I: Information concerning the quantum of tax rebates /concessions given to the Respondent no.2 (Youth Hostel Association) over the last three years.

In case relevant documents pertains to some other department then respective PIOs must procure the same from the concerned department. Complainant and Respondent (2) (CEO, Youth Hostels Association of India) both are directed to be present on the next date of hearing with all the relevant documents as mentioned in their Written Submissions. Furthermore, Respondent (2) must bring all the documents over which they are relying to substantiate their submissions regarding finances, grants, concessions, lands etc. Page 13 of 38 The Registry is directed to forward copies of this order, besides the Complainant and the Respondents, to the PIOs mentioned above."

Relevant Facts emerged during 2nd Hearing on 07.06.2024:

The following were present: -

Complainant: Represented by Manoj Kumar Singh present in person. Respondent No. 1: Shri Dinesh Kumar, SO/APIO, DC (Rev.) on behalf of O/O Registrar of Cooperative Societies, New Delhi present in person. Respondent No. 2: Represented by Advocate Narendra Yadav, YHAI present in person.

Respondent No. 3: Shri Khalid Anasari, US/CPIO accompanied by Shri Pankaj Dhamija, US/ the then CPIO, D/O. Youth Affairs present in person. Respondent No. 4: Shri Dinesh Kumar Lakhumoa, Dy. L & DO/PIO accompanied by Shri D. S. Sehrawat, SHTDT, L & DO, MOHUA present in person. Respondent No. 5: Not present.

Respondent No. 6: Shri Brij Mohan, ITO/CPIO, Income Tax Officer (E)-1 present in person.

Respondent No. 7: Not present.

Written submissions of the Respondents are taken on record.

Respondent No. 1, 3, 4 & 6 invited attention of the Commission towards the contents of their averred written submissions.

Appellant's representative and also the learned counsel representing YHAI/ Respondent No. 2 sought time to file written submissions with the Commission in support of their arguments.

The matter was heard by the Bench and after taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, following 2nd interim order dated 07.06.2024 was passed:

"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing all the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant and learned counsel representing Youth Hostel Association of India (i.e. Page 14 of 38 Respondent No. 2 herein) requested for adjournment to file their written submissions in support of their pleading Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned.

The Registry of this bench is directed to issue a fresh hearing notice to the Appellant and as well as the Respondents and re-schedule the instant matter on a later date in due course.

This Complaint is adjourned accordingly."

Relevant Facts emerged during 3rd Hearing held on 26.05.2025: The following were present:-

Complainant: He, along with Shri Manoj Kumar Singh present in person. Respondent No. 1: Not present.

Respondent No. 2: Represented by Advocate Narendra Yadav, YHAI present in person.

Respondent No. 3: Shri Khalid Anasari, US/CPIO, D/O. Youth Affairs present in person.

Respondent No. 4: Shri Bipin Bhatt, Section Officer, L & DO, MoHUA present in person.

Respondent No. 5: Not present.

Respondent No. 6: Shri Kumar Gaurav, ITO/CPIO, Income Tax Officer (E)-1 present in person.

Respondent No. 7: Not present.

I. A written submission filed by the Appellant prior to the hearing is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

"...I would like to reiterate that Youth Hostels Association of INDIA (YHAI), having its National Office at 5, Nyay Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021 is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration No. S-932 dated 02.02.1956 (copy attached and marked as Annexure 1). Further, Section 19 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 provides that any person may inspect documents or seek certified copies of documents pertaining to a body registered under Societies Registration Act.

Page 15 of 38

2 The society (YHAI) organises programmes, adventurous sports, adventurous trips and tours all over world which are availed by the members of the society discounted and/or subsidised rates. It operates through a three-tier system i.e., the National, State and Unit. Office bearers of the National, State and Unit level a acted through elections conducted once in three years. The society is governed Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of Association and has been Client of Central Govt. grants and funds as well as State Govt. funds/assistance applicant vide RTI application dated 07.12.2019 (copy attached and marked as annexure

2) sought details regarding the elections in YHAI and other related matters of Delhi State Branch along with those of local units. Being a lifetime member of YHAL the applicant deserves every right to know about the affairs of Delhi State Branch.

That vide letter dated 13.12.2019, the CEO of YHAI refused to share information giving a vague and illogical reason that YHAI is not covered under RTI (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 3) possible due to the fact that the rules were flouted during the elections and hence, such reply was provided to cover up the blatant violation of laws of the land

3. It is submitted that YHAI must be brought under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 because:

a) YHAI is a "public authority" as per Section 2(h) read with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. YHAI is a body of self-government established or constituted by any other law made by Parliament and is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government. Further, it does not fall within any of the exemptions as provided under Section 8 of the Act.

b) various complaints of corruption and irregularities in Youth Hostel Association are pending since long [Copies attached and marked as Annexure 4(Colly)]

c) at present the association is in possession of corrupt and vicious persons (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 5)

d) the management of YHAI is indulging in tax evasion in the garb of trekking and training to fulfil the vested interests (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 5) Page 16 of 38

e) In the said email it has been stated that the National Chairman have YHAI as a personal property and assets (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 5).

f) Further, death of Member and staff took place due to negligence management and when inquired about the measures taken and what legal protocols were followed or not, the generic response that was received from YHAI that it does not fall within the ambit of RTI Act and hence, needs no response (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 5)

g) To prevent the Election process of the YHAI from being conducted arbitrarily and restore the democratic functioning of YHAI. It is submitted that elections are conducted in an opaque manner without following standard electoral practices. Most importantly, Retirees are holding onto their posts and Youth is missing from YHAI for which the Institution/Association was built. The whole process of elections is conducted in such a manner that a handful of individuals keep electing each other, term after term without participation of maximum members of YHAI and the votes polled in elections are grim reminders of this ugly truth (Refer to Annexure 5).

h) To restore the image, conduct and function of YHAI.

4. In order to establish that YHAl has been a huge beneficiary of Govt.

patronage and funds it is submitted that:

a) Vide letter No. F.11011/18/2019-YH dated 7th October, 2021 YH Section of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports informed Hon'ble CIC that 'Funds amounting to Rs. 52.14 lakh had been released by the Deptt. of YA&S to YHAI for addition of two storeys and major repairs etc. in its premises a Chanakyapuri till 1990.

However, no grant has been released in the recent past (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 6). Some Sta Govts have also sanctioned funds (Copy attached and marked Annexure 7)

b) L&DO, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (erstwhile M/o Housing Urban Development), Govt. of India had allotted land measuring C acre on lease hold to YHAI in Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.02.1970 (Order No. L.III (89)/69) (copy enclose construction of Hostel cum National Office at a cost of Rs. 36,000 an annual ground rent of 5% per annum thereon. The current commercial value of the said land is approximately Rs. 500 crore. Apart from Page 17 of 38 this other State Govts/UTs Le. Assam, Punjab, Karnataka, Nagaland, Leh etc., have also provided land for construction of Youth Hostels to YHAI across the country. At some part of state government Youth Hostels have been transferred to Nehru Yuva Kendra (Coples attached and marked as Annexure 8(colly))

c) During hearing on 20.07.2015 in a similar matter of Shri B.D. Sharma Vs. YHAI, the respondent YHAI has provided that balance of Govt. Grants was to the tune of Rs. 68,63,056/- (the extract taken from the similar matter File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000018). (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 9)

d) That in File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000018 in case of Shri B.D. Sharma Vs. YHAI, it may be seen that in the hearing held on 05.05.2015 in the instant case, the then CEO, YHAI had handed over two separate letters dated 24.3.2015 and 06.04.2015 addressed to the Commission by Shri S. Venkat Narayanan, National Chairman and Shri Mohd. Shafi Pandit National President respectively of YHAI wherein they had stated that the had agreed in principle to declare YHAI as a public organisation and the matter would be put up for approval to the National Executive Committee which is to meet on April 11-12. 2015/. He also stated that Association will submit a letter to the above effect to the Commission week. Vide letter dated 20.4.2015, Shri Yudhisthir Sharma, CEO, fu stated that National Executive Committee (NEC) of YHAI has constitution a committee to review whether YHAI could be declared as a " Authority' and after a decision is taken by the NEC, it will have confirmed by the National Council of YHAI (brief facts taken for proceedings of CIC) (Refer to Annexure 9). But despite passage than 10 years, nothing concrete has been done except to camou issue and keep it in the backburner.

e) There are proven facts that YHAI are getting not only income tax rebate (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 10) but also tax concessions from NDMC. Some Youth Hostels in various states are functioning on the basis of a franchise given to local hotels; however, they also have buildings of their own in some states. A copy of income tax exemption/rebate availed by YHAI is attached herewith for your kind consideration. A copy of letter of MD, Assam Tourism Development Corporation & Chhattisgarh Tourism etc. are attached for kind perusal.[Copies attached and marked as Annexure 8(colly)].

f) That in File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000018 in case of Shri B.D. Sharma Vs YHAI, on the hearing dated 20.07.2015 the findings of CIC itself says 'Further, in their letter dated 27.05.2015 to the Commission, the Respondents stated that they had not received any direct or indirect grant or subsidy from the Central or the State Governments. However, it seen from the schedules to Financial Page 18 of 38 Statements as on 31.03.20 submitted by the Respondents (YHAI), that the balance of Government grants as per the last balance sheet was Rs. 68,63,056. The ab information contradicts the statement of the Respondents that they h been receiving no direct or indirect grant from the Central Government. (Refer to Annexure 9)

g) Surprisingly, on the final hearing dated 08.09.2015 in the matter of B.D. Sharma Vs. YHAI, File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000018, CIC recorded "the Complainant was not present.

However, the Commission has received a letter dated 24 from him, stating that he is satisfied with the information provided Respondents and would like to withdraw the filed to the Commission. C Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn." I am sure learned Information Commissioner is wise enough to catch the ground reality and facts behind the pressure tactics to withdraw the RTI

h) Apart from huge exemptions in Income Tax and NDMC etc, several grants/exemptions/rebates on various items like LPG, rail fare etc., are available to the YHAI (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 11).

1) A letter No. TDC/GM(Mktg)/YHAI/2000-03 dated 22.7.2000 referring Lr. No. YHAI/APSB/APTDC/037/09, dated 22.6.2009 addressed to Sri Ch. Sreenivasa Prasad, State Chairman & National Vice-President, Andhra Pradesh State Branch, State Secretariat, Youth Hostel Building, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam 530017 by the General manager (Marketing), Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC) itself proves that APTDC has Tie-up with Youth Hostel Association of India and has offered 15% discount on the room tariff on all APTDC Hotel rooms and 10% discount on all other services excluding taxes to Youth Hostel Association members. Likewise, some other state govt's tourism department (Assam, Chhattisgarh etc.) provide hotel room discount to the members of YHAI (Coples attached and marked as Annexure 12 colly).

j) Further, in every activity done by the YHAI, which is involved for promotion of Adventure Sports and similar activities, Central Govt. through DoPT provides financial assistance to the eligible Central Govt.

Employees for the programme of approved activities. Moreover, as per DOPT circular issued in October, 1989, every Govt. employee is entitled to 30 days Page 19 of 38 Special Casual Leave in a year, if he or she participates in the programmes conducted by YHAI. This has also been adopted by Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha Secretariat, CVC, PSU Banks, PSUs etc. Leave is nothing but cash in kind and it has a covert impact on state exchequer. The leave availed by Govt. employees be it Central, State or Autonomous Bodies, if converted into money would run into several hundred of crores.

Information Commissioner is wise enough to catch the ground reality and facts behind the pressure tactics to withdraw the RTI.

h) Apart from huge exemptions in Income Tax and NDMC etc. several grants/exemptions/rebates on various items like LPG, rail fare etc. are available to the YHAI (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 11).

i) A letter No. TDC/GM(Mktg)/YHAI/2009-93 dated 22.7.2009 referring Lr. No. YHAI/APSB/APTDC/037/09, dated 22.5.2009 addressed to Sri Ch. Sreenivasa Prasad, State Chairman & National Vice-President, Andhra Pradesh State Branch, State Secretariat, Youth Hostel Building, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam 530017 by the General manager (Marketing). Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC) itself proves that APTDC has Tie-up with Youth Hostel Association of India and has offered 15% discount on the room tariff on all APTDC Hotel rooms and 10% discount on all other services excluding taxes to Youth Hostel Association members. Likewise, some other state govt's tourism department (Assam, Chhattisgarh etc.) provide hotel room discount to the members of YHAI (Copies attached and marked as Annexure 12 colly).

j) Further, in every activity done by the YHAI, which is involved for promotion of Adventure Sports and similar activities, Central Govt. through DOPT provides financial assistance to the eligible Central Govt. Employees for the programme of approved activities. Moreover, as per DOPT circular issued in October 1989, every Govt. employee is entitled to 30 days Special Casual Leave in a year, if he or she participates in the programmes conducted by YHAI. This has also been adopted by Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha Secretariat, CVC, PSU Banks, PSUs etc. Leave is nothing but cash in kind and it has a covert impact on state exchequer. The leave availed by Govt. employees be it Central, State or Autonomous Bodies, if converted into money would run into several hundred of crores.

Moreover, by micro examination of the circulars issued by DoP&T, it is revealed that YHAI and Central Govt/State Govt./Deptt. of Youth Affairs and Sports/DoPT have a very long, strong and close association and somehow YHAI is directly or Page 20 of 38 indirectly controlled and/or governed on the directions issued by Deptt. of Youth Affairs & Sports & DoPT (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 13 colly)

k) it is worth to mention that on one hand Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports is shirking and washing its hands from the instant matter of YHAI by stating that "It is not under administrative control of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (a copy of letter No. F.11011/18/2019-YH dated 7.10.2021 is attached) and on the other hand on several occasions several letters/directions were issued, wherein policies were laid down and instructions were issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports. The letter itself declares the responsibilities of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Gol towards the YHAI in which core issues of YHAI pertains to (i) Formation of Central Policy Committee, (ii) Formation of Central Monitoring Committee, (iii) Policy and Promotion of Youth Hostel Scheme, (iv) construction of Youth Hostels, (v) Identification of suitable buildings as Youth Hostels for outright purchase where land is not available, (vi) Provision of funds for equipping the new Youth Hostels, Selection and appointment of Managers, Honorarium for Managers, (vii) Composition laid down to constitute Committees etc (Copies attached and marked as Annexure 14).

1) It is further added that YHAI itself claims that it has been organising trekking programs and issuing membership and certificate to the Central Govt./State Govt. officials for more than four decades. Since 2015, every year circulars have been issued by DOPT [Copy attached and marked as Annexure 15 (colly)) in this regard wherein YHAI is listed as a recognised institute. In all the activities and programme of YHAI, Central, State Govt. and other major departments of the country are involved with financial and non-financial.

m) Attention may be drawn towards Para 3 & 4 of the Note No. #02 (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 16) dated 25.02.2020 of K.A. Talwar (CR-DR) of e-file No. CR 1-12/4/2016-CR1-CIC-IPart(1) (Computer No. 760) in which at point No. 4 CIC itself opined that it appears that YHAI has been allotted Government/Public Land by LADO, Ministry of Urban Development and it receives some financial aid/grants from Central Government for construction of its building etc.

n) It is kindly requested to peruse the email dated 22.7.2018 and 16.11.2019 sent by Shri V. K. Shukla, Ex Acting President, YHAI to various dignitaries and members of YHAI including Shri Shafi Pandit, Ex President, YHAI and few other emails/letters [Copy attached and marked as Annexure 17 (colly)]. Through these emails/letters Shri Shukla and others had raised various issues, complaints Page 21 of 38 against corruption in YHAI and out of his 14 suggestions, 1st and top suggestion was to take steps for introduction of RTI provisions to bring transparency in the working of YHAI.

o) Further, a letter written by Shri C.L. Theodore, Partner, Ooty Youth Hostel, Ooty (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 18) addressed to Mr. S. Venkatnarayanan, National Chairman, YHAI, Managing Partner, Oot Youth Hostel, Ooty reveals that how a National Chairman of YHAI steeped in corruption and fraudulence.

p) It is also pertinent to mention here that a Parliament Question was a raised about '(b) the role and responsibility of the Government in functioning of Youth Hostels vide Unstarred Question No. 2513 answer on 16.3.2017. In reply to this Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports s that '(b) The "Youth Hostel" is a joint venture of the Central and Governments. While the Central Government bears the co construction, the State Government provides fully developed land free- of-cost with water apply electricity connection and approach roads The Youth Hostels are looked ahead by Managers, appointed by the Central Gest on the recommendation of the candidate by a committee chaired by Be District Collector/Deputy Commissioner or his nominee. In addition, for each Youth Hostel, there is a Hostel Management Committee (HMC). HMCs are chaired by District Magistrates (in case of Hostels located in Districts) and by State Secretaries of Youth Affairs (in case of Hostels located at State capitals). HMCs are responsible for effective management & maintenance of the Youth Hostels (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 19).

q) The respondent YHAI in its reply dated 16.10.2021 at point No. 3 had taken a dubious stand by saying that the present appeal has been filed after the expiry of the limitation period of 30 days as prescribed under the RTI Act, thus the appeal should be barred by Section 19 of the RTI Act and on other hand states that the YHAI is not under ambit of RTI Act.

r) Further, it is my duty to apprise CIC that in Interim Decision dated 17.11.2021 the then learned IC, Shri Heeralal Samariya Sahab has directed CPIO of the Deptt. of Youth Affairs & Sports to provide the information concerning the land allotted by the Central or Stat Governments to the Respondents in various parts of the country, to get the with the terms and conditions of allotment, grants/subsidies provided the Respondent No. 2 (YHAI) by the Government from time to time, the role of the nominee of the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports a nominees of other Government Departments on the National Council Page 22 of 38 Youth Hostels Association of India and information concerning any of concessions given by the Government to the said Respondent.

But it is a utter surprise that in place of seeking relevant informal from all the states of Union of India, Department of Youth Affairs simply shared the same RTI in question to all Chief Secretaries/Sports Secretaries of the states which was irrelevant in context of other states resulting in nothing but embarrassment by getting an uniform reply 'Not pertains to this office and/or "Na Report from the respective states. Deptt of YA& Sports didn't bother to seek information concerning the land allotted by the Central or State Govt. etc. to the Respondents as directed by CIC

s) it will not be out of place to mention that in an identical matter of Pramod Kumar Singh Vs. PIO, Delhi Public School (File No. CIC/RM/C/2014/000359) (Copy attached and marked as Annexure 20) on 23.01.2017, CIC has directed the respondent authority to provide information sought to the appellant in consonance with provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and under Section 19 (8) (a) (ii) of RTI Act, 2005, further directed to appoint a CPIO and to see that RTI wing is constituted in DPS, Angul. It is understood that the advantage of the ruling is that Societies/Associations will have to become more transparent about their finances and can no longer hide any information about their books.

PRAYER

5. In the light of the extravagant facts, circumstances and submissions alluded herein above and grounds elucidated, it is clear that Youth Hostel Association of India (YHAI) has been continuously receiving government funds, income-tax exemptions, various supports and patronage, making it a fit case to come under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 2(h) read with Section 4 of the said Act.

It is, therefore, requested and prayed that a direction may kindly be issued YHAI to appoint PIO and provide the required information at the earliest. This will not only restore transparency and accountability in YHAI but would act a m catalyst to stop the ongoing corruption, irregularities and degradation which prevalent now. This may also stop deaths of innocent youths due to carelessness YHAI during trekking programmes and will fix responsibility for negligence. The access to information about policies, decisions and actions of the YHAI that affect the lives of citizens (members) is an instrument to ensure accountability and there is no plausible reason as to why YHAI should remain outside the ambit of RTI.

Page 23 of 38

6. Pass any other order(s) as the CIC may deem fit and proper in the interest natural justice."

II. The Appellant by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that YHAI fulfil all the parameters to be considered as "Public Authority" as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He prayed the Commission that YHAI should be declared as public authority to answer the queries of information seeker under the RTI Act.

III. Ld. counsel for YHAI i.e. Respondent No. 2 prayed the Commission to grant some time to file written submission to rebut the contentions raised by the Appellant. The Appellant interjected and contested that not more than one week time should be granted to the Respondent No. 2 as this matter has already been adjourned various times.

IV. The Respondent No. 3, 4 and 6 reiterated their earlier stand.

The matter was heard by the Bench and after taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, following 3rd interim order dated 24.06.2025 was passed:

V. "The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing all the parties and perusal of records, observed that learned counsel representing Youth Hostel Association of India (i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein) requested for adjournment to file their written submissions in support of their pleading with a copy served to the opposite parties in advance. Time granted and accordingly, Respondent No. 2 is directed to file their written submissions within two weeks of the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the same be duly served to all the opposite parties concerned.

VI. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned. VII. The Registry of this bench is directed to issue a fresh hearing notice to the Appellant and as well as the Respondents and re-schedule the instant matter on a later date in due course.

VIII. It is noted that the issues involved in the case need deliberation by a larger bench and accordingly, the Registry is requested to refer the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission for the same."

Page 24 of 38

Accordingly, A Division Bench was formed constituting Smt. Anandi Ramalingam (Central Information Commissioner) and Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari (Central Information Commissioner) and matter was listed before Division Bench for hearing on 03.09.2025.

Relevant facts emerged during proceedings held on 03.09.2025:

The attendance of parties are recorded hereunder: -

Complainant: Not present.

Respondent No. 1: Not present.

Respondent No. 2: Not present.

Respondent No. 3: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kanaujia, US-cum-CPIO, D/o Youth and Affairs, New Delhi present in person.

Respondent No. 4: Shri Bipin Bhatt, SO-cum-CPIO, L & DO, MoHUA present in person.

Respondent No. 5: Not person.

Respondent No. 6: Shri Kumar Gaurav, ITO-cum-CPIO, Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-2 present in person.

Respondent No. 7: Shri Rakesh Kumar, SO-cum-PIO, Govt. of NCT, Delhi present in person.

I. The Commission is in receipt of a letter from the Complainant on 21.07.2025 wherein he requested the Commission to implead DoPT in the array of Respondent on the following lines:

"...I respectfully refer to my written submission dated 29.10.2024 in connection with my Appeal File No. CIC/DOURD/C/2020/107484. The 2nd last hearing of the said appeal was held on 07.06.2024, and in compliance with the discussions held, I duly submitted all relevant documents pertaining to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) along with Written Submission both online on 18.10.2024 (at 22.28 hrs) and in person on 29.10.24 at the office of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Shri Vinod Tiwari Sahab.

2. However, it is with regret that I bring to your attention that DoPT has not been made a party for the hearing scheduled on 26.05.2025.

Page 25 of 38

3. In view of the seriousness of the matter and the relevance of DoPT to the issues under appeal, I once again humbly request that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that DoPT is made a party to the proceedings.

4. Thank you for your kind attention and consideration."

II. A written submission dated 03.06.2025 has been filed by Shri Thakur Sumit and Shri Narendra Yadav, Advocate for YHAI (Respondent No. 2 herein), which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:

"...YOUTH HOSTELS That the Respondent No. I i.e. Youth Hostels Association of India, is a non-profitable organization, inter-alia, engaged in the youth hosteling movement and is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the aims and objects as set out in its Memorandum & Rules & Regulations of Association.

2. That the Respondent No.1 is not a public authority within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act", for short) and it does not come under the purview of the RTI Act and more particularly under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is quoted hereunder for convenience:

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;

Page 26 of 38

The Respondent No. 1 is neither owned nor controlled nor financed by the Government, directly or indirectly. The Government does not have deep and/ or pervasive control over the Respondent No. 1 and its affairs.

3. That the present Appeal has been filed after the expiry of the limitation period of 30 days as prescribed under the RTI Act. The Appellant filed Application dated 07.12.2019 under the RTI Act and the Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 13.12.2019 informed the Appellant that the Respondent No.1 is not covered under the RTI Act. The present Appeal sent by the Appellant via post, is shown to be received on 25.02.2020, thus, the present Appeal is barred by Section 19 of the RTI Act. Section 19 of the RTI Act is quoted hereunder for convenience

19. Appeal.

(1) Any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub- section (1) or clause

(a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, 3 as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time".

4. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled as "Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Kerala and others" passed in Civil Appeal No.9017 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24290 of 2012) has examined the term 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which was referred to by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled "Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) Vs. Lt. Gen S S Dahiya" (W.P.(C) 4884 of 2014. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Air Force Sports Complex case (supra) are enumerated hereinbelow:

"15. The Supreme Court in Thalappalam undertook a comprehensive examination of the term 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Court meticulously noted that the use of both "means" and "includes" in this provision indicates an exhaustive explanation of what Page 27 of 38 constitutes a 'public authority.' The judgment emphasized that for an entity to be classified as a 'public authority,' it must fit squarely within the categories explicitly laid out in Section 2(h). This includes (i) bodies established by or under the Constitution, (ii) those created by law made by Parliament or State Legislature, (iii) entities owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government, and (iv) non-governmental organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly by government funds. The Supreme Court 4 has cautioned against adopting a liberal or W.P.(C) 4884/2014 Page 14 of 22 expansive interpretation of the term 'public authority,' stating that doing so would stretch the provision beyond its intended scope and include entities not contemplated by the legislature. The Court also highlighted that the RTI Act imposes specific obligations on 'public authorities' to ensure transparency and accountability, and these obligations should not be imposed on entities unless they unequivocally fall within the purview of the statute. Consequently, the determination of whether an entity qualifies as a 'public authority' must be based on a strict construction of Section 2(h) and not on a general perception of public interest.

Assessing AFSC's status as a 'public authority' under Section 2 (h) of RTI Act

16. The onus to demonstrate that an entity is owned, controlled, or substantially financed - or that a non-governmental organization is significantly funded, directly or indirectly, by the appropriate government - rests with the applicant seeking information or the government itself.

17. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Petitioner does not fall within the categories specified in Clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the crucial issue for determination is whether the AFSC can be classified under Clauses (d)(i) or (d)(ii) of Section 2(h), that is, whether it is a body "owned, controlled, or substantially financed" by the government. The CIC, in the Impugned Order, concluded that the AFSC qualifies as a 'public authority' based on two primary considerations: (a) the AFSC operates on government land, suggesting that its existence is dependent on this land, which, in turn, constitutes substantial financing by the government; and (b) the management of AFSC by serving Air Force Officers implies significant government control. The pertinent question is whether these factors satisfy the criteria set forth by judicial interpretations for an entity to be deemed a public authority under the RTI Act.

Page 28 of 38

18. First, let us examine whether the degree of ownership exercised by the government is so pervasive so as to indicate that the AFSC is controlled by the government. AFSC is an autonomous entity governed by its own rules and bye- laws and has not been established by any specific law or government notification. Consequently, there is no legal documentation to demonstrate that the AFSC has been created or is owned by the government. In fact, in Air Vice Marshal J.S. Kumar, the Court, after detailed examination, observed that the AFSC "is a private body only providing recreation to Air Force Officers, and it is not discharging any public function or public duty." Further, it has been held that AFSC generates funds through monthly subscription and grants from welfare funds and no funds are sanctioned from the Ministry of Defence.

19. The Respondent's contention, which the CIC endorsed, posits that the involvement of Air Force Officers and government members within the administrative structure of the AFSC demonstrates substantial government control over its management and decision-making. However, this Court finds such an argument unpersuasive. In Thalappalam, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that substantial control must go beyond mere regulatory or supervisory oversight. It requires direct and pervasive participation in the entity's decision-making processes, impacting its day-to-day operations. Simply having government officials within an administrative body does not automatically translate into substantial control, particularly if these officials do not actively shape or influence the entity's key decisions or operations. Thus, the mere presence of Air Force Officers does not fulfil the stringent criterion set out in Thalappalam for what constitutes 'substantial control'. The fact that government officers may come together to form a club for recreational purposes does not automatically transform such an entity into a public authority. It remains a private club, distinct from government function or control. The mere involvement of government officers, without substantial government financing or direct, pervasive control over the club's operations, does not alter its fundamentally private character. As established in Army Welfare Housing Organization, the presence of serving Army officials in management roles does not imply they will automatically act under the directives of Army Headquarters or the Ministry of Defence in their capacity as Governing Council members. Simply having a government nominee or ex-officio officers on the board does not equate to substantial control. There must be evidence of pervasive government influence over the operations of the organization, including its appointments and policy decisions, to meet this threshold.

Page 29 of 38

20. Applying these principles to the present case, it becomes evident that the involvement of Air Force Officers in AFSC' s management does not, in itself constitute the 'substantial control' required under the RTI Act. While their presence might suggest some form of governmental involvement, it does not automatically equate to the deep, pervasive control necessary to transform AFSC into a public authority. The key distinction here lies between mere government representation and actual, substantive control over the entity's policies and operations. The Air Force Officers serve in roles that are incidental to their primary duties, fulfilling functions that do not actively shape AFSC's daily decision-making or align it with government directives. This arrangement appears to be more about organizational convenience than a demonstration of substantive control, and it does not elevate AFSC to the status of a government instrumentality. Furthermore, AFSC's governance and administration are conducted strictly in accordance with its internal rules and bye-laws. There is no evidence indicating that the government dictates AFSC's policies or interferes in its operational decisions. The officers act more as ex-officio members within an independent governance structure, rather than agents of government command.

21. Thus, the conclusion drawn by CIC fails to meet the 'substantial control' standard outlined in the RTI Act, as elucidated in the afore-noted judgments. Its findings did not present evidence that the government directs AFSC' s activities or policies in a manner that qualifies as deep and pervasive control. Thus, the mere involvement of government officials, without more, is insufficient to bring AFSC ·within the scope of the RTI Act. In light of these observations, the Court finds that AFSC operates sufficiently independently of governmental control, and the CIC's determination lacks the evidentiary basis required for classifying AFSC as a public authority.

22. This brings us to the second point of consideration - whether AFSC is substantially financed by the government. The Respondent's argument, which has been accepted by the CIC, is that the AFSC's location on government land amounts to substantial financing. The Supreme Court in Thalappalam extensively discussed the term "substantially financed", holding that the nature of financing must be actual, significant, and necessary for the entity's survival. The mere providing of subsidies, grants, etc. would not amount to substantial financing, unless it is proved that the body -would struggle to exist without the same. The CIC considered AFSC's location of government land to constitute Page 30 of 38 substantial financing, holding that if AFSC was not permitted to use the same, it would cease to exist."

5. That the land was allotted in the year 1970 by L & DO for construction of youth hostels building@ Rs. 36,000/- per acre as premium plus annual ground rent @5% per annum thereon. The Respondent No.1 has constructed building on the said land out of his own funds & resources.

6. The Respondent No.1 has not received any financial grant/ aid from the Government for last 25-26 years. Even prior thereto, the Respondent No.1 did not receive continuous or substantial financial grant/ aid from the Government.

7. That the stand of the Respondent No .1 that it does not come within the purview of the RTI Act, also find support from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as "Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr." W.P.(C) 658/2016. Relevant paragraphs of Batra Hospital case (supra) are reproduced herein below:

"16. This Court is unable to subscribe to the above view. In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court had further explained that mere providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges cannot be said to be providing funding to the substantial extent. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are extracted below:

"Merely providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges, etc. as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it 'Would struggle to exist."

17. Concededly, the petitioner was not given any special grant or any special treatment by allotment of land. The land was leased to the petitioner as per the prevalent policy of the Government at the material time. Leasing of land for the purposes of education and health care to Non-Governmental Organizations for establishing educational institutes and health care facilities at a rate lower than what is charged for commercial establishments, cannot be considered as financing those institutions. The allocation of the resource of land for various purposes and charging appropriate rate for the same does not mean that the particular lessees that acquire leasehold interest in land are financed by the Government. The object of leasing land at lower rates is to ensure the availability of health services -at lower rates to the public. The incentive, if at all, is directed towards ensuring availability Page 31 of 38 of io healthcare and education to public at affordable rates and not to finance the concerned entity.

18. The expression "substantial finances" would take in its fold bodies which would struggle to exist without such finances and survive on the resources provided by the Government. In the present case, there is no material which would indicate that the petitioner would be unable to survive if the lease rentals were increased.

19. The CIC had also noted that the petitioner was required to provide free beds to the extent of 25% of the total beds available and further free OPD to poor/indigent patients. However, the CIC failed to appreciate that such demands were made on the petitioner as a condition of lease. The rationale of insisting on free services is clearly to extract due value for allocation of land (including at concessional rates). This clearly indicates that the intention of the DDA was not to finance the petitioner but to ensure that affordable health care is available to the public. As stated above, there is no material to indicate that non availability of land at concessional rates 1uould put the petitioner's survival in peril. Cost of inputs for providing services is a pass through costs and there is no material to establish that the same is not the case with the petitioner.

20. In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court had explained the meaning of the expression "a body owned". The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:

"35. A body owned by the appropriate Government clearly falls under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. A WP.(C) 658/2016 & WP.(C) 707/2016 body owned, means to have a good legal title to it having the ultimate control over the affairs of that body, ownership takes in its fold control, finance, etc. ii Further discussion of this concept is unnecessary because, admittedly, the societies in question are not owned by the appropriate Government."

21. In the facts of the present case, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner is a body owned by the Government.

22. This Court is unable to accept the view that merely because the land on 'Which the petitioner is running a hospital was allotted by the DDA at concessional rates, the same must be construed as financed by the Central/State Government. And, as there is no other material to indicate that the petitioner was funded by Central Government or any State Government.

Page 32 of 38

23. The CIC's conclusion that the petitioner has been substantially funded by an appropriate government and is thus a 'public authority' cannot be sustained.

Prayer The present Appeal of the Appellant is misconceived, meritless and ill-founded as such the present appeal may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice."

III. Shri Rajesh Kumar Kanaujia, US/CPIO, D/O Youth Affairs (Respondent No. 3 herein) pleaded that way back in 1980, Youth Hostel Association of India used to receive grants from the Government concerned, however, it was stopped mid- way and as on date they carry out their activities through the sponsorship of NGOs as per his understanding.

IV. Shri Bipin Bhatt, SO/CPIO, L & DO officer, MoHUA (Respondent No. 4 herein) submitted that the land was allotted to the YHAI in 1970 on a concessional rate. He further sought time to place on records of the Commission; (i) a copy of application form submitted by YHAI for allotment of the land on lease, (ii) complete copy of original allotment letter with its terms and conditions specifying the period of lease, (iii) purpose for which land was allotted may be clearly spelt out; and (iii) latest land inspection report carried out on YHAI's allotted land by MoHUA.

V. Respondent No. 5 (RTI Cell, New Delhi Municipal Council) remained absent during hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance.

VI. Shri Kumar Gaurav, ITO/CPIO, Income Tax Office (Respondent No. 6 herein) submitted that they have already filed a copy of income tax exemption received by YHAI in a tabular form which was already discussed on previous date of hearings. Further, no additional submissions were brought on record to substantiate their arguments.

VII. Shri Rakesh Kumar, SO/PIO, O/O Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT, Delhi (Respondent No. 7 herein) apprised the Bench that the registration of the societies and firms has been decentralized into eleven SDM (HQ)/Revenue District under Divisional Commissioner of Revenue Department, Govt of NCT Delhi, 5 Sham Nath Marg, New Delhi-54 vide Notification No.CI/Admn./RFS- 1/2009/1903 dated 26.03.2010. After decentralization of the Office of Registrar Page 33 of 38 of Firms and Societies, all the records pertaining to Firms and Societies have been transferred to concerned District Office of District Magistrate of NCT of Delhi. As per e-data of the office, the society , namely, "YOUTH HOSTELS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA" is registered vide registration number S-932 under Society Registration Act 1960 and the record file has been transferred to Sub Divisional Magistrate (HQ) Registrar of Societies (Central) Office of the District Magistrate/ (Central District) Old Employment Exchange Building 14, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002 vide letter No. F. Societies/Transfer/2015/1140-1144 dt 29.07.2015. He volunteered to file a written submission in this regard by stating all the facts in writing.

VIII. Post hearing, the Commission is in receipt of a written submission from Respondent No. 7 (SO/PIO, O/O Commissioner of Industries, Govt. of NCT, Delhi) enumerating the facts as mentioned in para IX above. The same has been taken on record.

Further, a written submission dated 02.09.2025 has been filed by the SO (Societies and Firms), District Central, O/O Registrar of Societies & Firms, O/O DM (Central), Daryaganj, New Delhi, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

"This is to submit that this office has received a letter dated 25.08.2025 from the Office of the Industries Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan, Plot No. 419, FIE Patpar Ganj, Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. Wherein this office has been requested to appear in the hearing on behalf of the Office of the Industries Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan, Plot No. 419, FIE Patpar Ganj, Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. However the copy of the CIC notice has not been enclosed with the said letter. In compliance of the submission made by this office in the hearing at 07.06.2024 (copy enclosed) the requisite file/records in r/o the Society Namely "Youth Hostels Association of India" vide regn. No. S/932 was transferred to O/o District Magistrate (New Delhi), Registrar of Society/Firms, 12/1, Jam Nagar House, Sahajahan Road, New Delhi-110011 vide letter no. F./SDM(HQ)/ROS&F/C/2024/954-56 dated 10.06.2024 (copy enclosed).

In view of the above, further communication in the matter may kindly be taken up with Registrar of Societies/Firms (New Delhi) District."

Page 34 of 38

IX. Having heard the parties and examined the material placed before it, the question before the Commission is whether YHAI is Public Authority as per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act or not. Declaring a body as Public Authority under the RTI Act involves several critical factors and to address this aspect, the Commission frames the following issues for determination whether YHAI is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act:

(i) Whether YHAI is owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the Central or State Government within the meaning of Section 2 (h) (d)

(i) or (ii) of the RTI Act.

(ii) Whether the Government exercises "deep and pervasive control" over the administration, finances, or policy decisions of YHAI.

(iii) Whether the concessional allotment of land by L&DO and past release of grants amount to substantial financing by the Government.

Interim Decision:

X. The Commission, at the outset, takes serious note of the absence of Complainant, Respondent No. 1 (PIO, O/O RCS, New Delhi), Respondent No. 2 (YHAI) and Respondent No. 5 (PIO, NDMC) during hearing, despite service of hearing notice in advance. As a matter of fact, no written submission has been filed by the parties concerned seeking exemption and/or any request for adjournment in the matter.

XI. Further, perusal of the appellant's request for impleading DoPT as a party to the matter is found unsubstantiated on grounds of law as well as facts, hence, the same is disallowed.

XII. In the absence of concerned parties, the Commission is not in a position to decide the peculiar issue for which this Division Bench has been convened. In view of this and in the interest of arriving at a reasoned and legally sustainable conclusion, the Commission adjourns the matter and directs as under:

(a) Respondent No. 2 (YHAI) shall file comprehensive written submissions within four weeks addressing each of the above issues, supported by authenticated copies of:

• YHAI's Memorandum of Association, Rules & Regulations, Page 35 of 38 • audited financial statements (last 5 years), • list of government nominees (if any) on its Governing Body/Council, • details of all grants, subsidies, concessions, or land allotments received from any Central or State authority including documents submitted by YHAI to GoI for land allotment, • correspondence with Government of India regarding recognition, funding, or regulation.

(b) The Commission further observes that the question whether the Youth Hostels Association of India (YHAI) performs functions of public importance or those connected with governmental objectives under Article 12 of the Constitution requires deeper examination. The test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, including Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, guides that even if an entity is not 'State' in the strict sense, it may fall within the ambit of Article 12 if it performs functions of public importance or is connected with governmental objectives. In this context, the activities of YHAI, which include promotion of youth welfare, adventure and tourism programs supported and facilitated by Government departments, appear to have a close nexus with governmental functions under the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports. Therefore, before forming any final view, the Commission considers it appropriate to seek categorical comments from the concerned Respondent (Respondent No. 2 - YHAI) as well as from Respondent No. 3 - Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, on whether the functions discharged by YHAI can be construed as those of public importance or those connected with governmental objectives within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 shall provide submissions on this issue.

(c) Respondent No. 3 (Department of Youth Affairs) and Respondent No. 4 (L&DO) shall also file supplementary affidavits clarifying the nature and extent of financial assistance, lease rate terms of the land allotted to YHAI, and ongoing supervision (if any) over YHAI. Further, the remaining parties are directed to file their respective written submissions along with supportive documents on the issues framed above, through a link given in the CIC's hearing notice and also a copy of the same be provided to each opposite party within two weeks of the date of receipt of this order.

Page 36 of 38

(d) The Complainant may file his rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

The matter shall be listed for final hearing on a date to be notified separately by the Registrar.

This Complaint is adjourned accordingly.





 Anandi Ramalingam(आनंदी रामाल ंगम)           Vinod Kumar Tiwari (लिनोद कुमार लििारी)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त)       Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त)
     दिन ांक/Date: 04.11.2025                       दिन ांक/Date: 04.11.2025



     Authenticated true copy
     (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत)

     (Brig. Vipin Chakravarthy)
     Registrar
     011- 26175171
     Date



     Addresses of Parties

     1. PIO,
     Assistant Registrar, Office of the
     Registrar Cooperative Societies,
     Old Court Building, Parliament Street,
     New Delhi -110001.

     2. PIO
     Chief Executive Officer,
     Youth Hostels Association of India.
     5, Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri,
     New Delhi - 110021



                                                                             Page 37 of 38
 3. PIO
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Department of Youth Affairs,
Youth Hostel Section, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi -110001.

4. PIO
Deputy L & DO, Ministry of
Housing & Urban Affairs, A Wing,
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi - 110011.

5. PIO
RTI Cell, New Delhi Municipal Council,
Ground Floor, Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001

6. PIO
Income Tax Officer (E)-1,
Office of the DGIT(E),
Room No. 2508, Dr. S.P.M.
Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002.

7. PIO
Commissioner of Industries,
419, F.I.E., Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092.


8. Shri. Prabhakar Kaushik
D-1055, Gamri Road,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.




                                                  Page 38 of 38

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission

Prabhakar Kaushik vs Department Of Urban Development on 10 November, 2025