Central Information Commission
Mrs P Singh vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 3 March, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000531/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Date of first hearing : 30.1.2014
Date of first order
: 30.1.2014
Date of second hearing
: 3rd March 2014
Date of second order
: 3rd March 2014
Date of third hearing
: 7th April 2014
Date of final order 15.5.2014
:
Name of the Complainant : Shri S P Singh,
B2/72, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110063
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Badminton Association of India,
383384, Double Storey, New Rajinder
Nagar, New Delhi - 110 060
Attendance during the hearing on 30.1.2014.
The Complainant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri R. A. Sharma, CPIO was present.
Attendance during the hearing on 3.3.2014.
The Complainant was present.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present:
1. Shri A. K. Mittra.
2. Shri Govind K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
Attendance during the hearing on 7.4.2014.
The following were present:
1. R. A. Sharma, CPIO.
2. A. K. Mittra.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Hearing on 30.1.2014
According to the complaint, the complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2013 to the CPIO of the Badminton Association of India (BAI), seeking information on twelve points arising out of minutes the Annual General Meeting of Badminton Association of India held in Delhi on 27.04.2013. Not having received a reply from the CPIO, he wrote to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 10.08.2013. Not having received a reply from the FAA, the complainant filed a complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Central Information Commission on 14.10.2013. In this complaint, he submitted that BAI had not furnished the information sought by him, nor had any reasons for rejection or delay in supply of information been given to him. He added that the RTI application was made by him on 21.06.2013 and till the date of complaint, no response had been received from BAI. The complainant further submitted that he had written to the Appellate Authority of BAI on 10.08.2013, stating that the CPIO had failed to furnish the requested information within the statutory period of 30 days and therefore action be taken against him and information be furnished on an urgent basis. He had received no response from the Appellate Authority. The complainant prayed to the CIC to take strict and appropriate action against the CPIO, BAI and direct the CPIO, BAI to furnish the information sought by him at the earliest.
2. We heard the Complainant and the Respondents. The Complainant submitted that he had still not received the information sought vide his RTI application dated 21.06.2013. He further submitted that the name and address of the FAA were not mentioned on the website of BAI. The Respondents stated that they had sent a response to the Complainant 06.09.2013. However, they had received the communication back with the remark by the postal authorities that despite repeated visits, the house of the addressee was found locked. The Respondents produced a photocopy of the India Post despatch receipt dated 09.09.2013 bearing the name of the Complainant and another photo copy of the remark by a postal official concerning the addressee's house having been found locked. They gave these photocopies to the Complainant. The Respondents also submitted in response to our query that they had not brought along a copy of their response dated 06.09.2013 to the Complainant. The Complainant submitted that the Respondents be directed to give a copy of their letter dated 06.09.2013 to him at the earliest. Having carefully considered the submissions and the records before us, we would like to hear both the parties again on the relief sought by the Complainant in his complaint dated 14.10.2013 by way of "strict and appropriate action against the CPIO, Badminton Association of India" and direction to the CPIO, BAI to furnish at the earliest the information sought by the Complainant in his RTI application dated 21.06.2013.
March, 2014 at 2.30 p.m.
rd
Accordingly, the case is adjourned to be heard again on 3 at
the Commission's office.
Hearing on 3.3.2014
3. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 21.6.2013, which was filed by the Complainant to the CPIO of the Badminton Association of India (BAI), seeking information on 12 points arising out of minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Badminton Association of India, held in Delhi on 27.4.2013. Not having received a reply from the CPIO, the Complainant wrote to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 10.8.2013. Not having received a reply from the FAA, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the CIC on 14.10.2013.
4. We earlier heard this matter on 30.1.2014. During this hearing, the Respondents submitted that they had sent a reply to the Complainant on 6.9.2013. However, they had received the communication back with the remark by the postal authorities that despite repeated visits, the house of the addressee was found locked. Based on the hearing, held on 30.1.2014, we had passed an interim order on the same date, adjourning the case to be heard again on March 3, 2014.
5. The matter was heard again today. The Respondents submitted that they had forwarded their response dated 6.9.2013 again to the Complainant. The Complainant acknowledged having received the same. It was submitted that there were some shortcomings in the information provided by the Respondents vide their letter dated 6.9.2013. However, since we are considering a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, alleging nonprovision of information within the timeframe stipulated in the RTI Act, we would not go into the issue of content of the information provided. In this context, we recall the following observation by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in J K Mittal vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. [W.P.(C) No. 6755/2012]: "....there can be no dispute that while considering a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of Subsection (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner."
6. During the hearing today, the Respondents acknowledged that no reply was sent by them to the Complainant between the date of the RTI application (21.6.2013) and their response dated 6.9.2013. It is thus seen that the first and the only response was sent by the Respondents in a timeframe much longer than the limit of 30 days laid down in Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. In response to our query regarding the reason(s) for this delay, the Respondents cited a few reasons that are examined below.
7. The first reason cited by the Respondents for the delay was that the RTI application dated 21.6.2013 contained "multiple questions". The Respondents also stated that the Complainant had filed more than one RTI applications, putting pressure on the time of the CPIO. However, it is noted that the RTI Act does not provide any additional time to the CPIO in cases where an RTI application may contain more than one queries or an applicant may have filed more than one applications. The Respondents also submitted that some references had to be made to third parties as the information sought pertained to such parties. They referred in particular to query No. 9 of the RTI application dated 21.6.2013, seeking a list of District Badminton Associations of each affiliated unit of BAI available in the BAI office. In this context, we note that in their reply dated 6.9.2013 (a copy of which was given to us by the Respondents for our records), the Respondents had stated that the information sought by the Complainant was "information furnished to BAI by its affiliated units in fiduciary relationship and the disclosure of which may effect (sic) the competitive position of third party..." The Respondents had denied this information on the above ground. The Respondents further submitted that the RTI application dated 21.6.2013 might have reached them late. They stated that they were not in a position to make a definitive submission in this regard today as Shri R. A. Sharma, CPIO was not present in today's hearing, but might come back to this issue in any future proceedings.
8. The Respondents also brought up the issue of the RTI application having been made by Shri S. P. Singh in his capacity as Honorary Secretary of the Delhi Badminton Association. They further submitted that only individual citizens of India could seek information under the RTI Act. In this context, we note that the RTI application dated 21.6.2013, the appeal dated 10.8.2013 to the FAA and the complaint dated 14.10.2013 to the CIC, were all made on the letterhead of the Delhi Badminton Association. All these communications were signed by Shri S. P. Singh, with his name clearly mentioned under his signatures, followed by "Hony Secretary Delhi Badminton Association." This is the first time that the Respondents have brought up this particular issue.
9. The issue of submission of an RTI application on behalf of an Association was examined at some length in the Commission's order No. CIC/AD/A/2009/001462 dated 18.11.2009. The Respondents in that case had contended that the Appellant had sought information on behalf of an Association. In the above mentioned order dated 18.11.2009, a number of decisions of the Commission were cited to arrive at a decision on the above contention of the Respondents. Having examined the previous decisions of the Commission, it was stated in the order dated 18.11.2009: "Detailed study of the aforementioned cases thus reveals that the opinion is divided on whether an association of persons is to be considered as "citizen" as understood and defined under the RTI Act 2005 or not. However the one constant position in all the cases where information has been denied on the ground that the information has not been sought by a citizen as defined under the RTI Act 2005, is that the signatories have been different individuals at different levels of the same case. Also in some cases, the name of the signatory has not even been clearly specified. In such cases the inference is obvious that the signatory is a mere representative of the Firm/Association and not seeking information in his/her individual capacity. The position is completely the opposite in the instant case, where the Appellant is the same individual who has duly signed the RTI application as also the Appeals and pursued the case in his individual capacity at all levels." Based on the above observation, the Commission had directed the Respondents to disclose the information.
10. It is noted that in the instant case, the same individual, Shri S. P. Singh, who filed the RTI application, with his name clearly identified on it, has also followed up the matter at the subsequent stages of appeal to the FAA, complaint to the Commission and the hearings on this complaint. Accordingly, the contention of the Respondents that he filed the application in his capacity as Hony. Secretary of the Delhi Badminton Association, cannot become the ground for rejection of or delayed action on his RTI application.
11. In the light of the foregoing, we are not inclined to accept the explanation given by the Respondents for the delay in responding to the RTI application dated 21.6.2013. Shri R. A. Sharma, CPIO must explain the delay in providing the information to the Complainant. Accordingly, we direct Shri R. A. Sharma, CPIO to show cause why he should not be penalised in terms of the provisions of sub Section 1 of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act for the delay in providing information in response to the RTI application dated 21.6.2013. By virtue of the powers vested in us in terms of Section 18 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, we direct Shri R. A. Sharma, CPIO to appear April, 2014 at 3.15 p.m. th before us on 7 and give his explanation. Shri R. A. Sharma, CPIO is further directed to bring along the file on which the RTI application dated 21.6.2013 was processed, along with the documents, if any, regarding references made to third party(ies). His written submissions, if any, should reach the Commission's office by 31.3.2014.
Hearing on 7.4.2014.
12. Shri R. A. Sharma, CPIO appeared before us on 7.4.2014 in keeping with our direction in paragraph 11 above. He was accompanied by Shri A. K. Mittra. The CPIO had earlier sent his written submissions to us vide his letter dated 31.3.2014.
13. In his written submissions, the CPIO has stated that the RTI application dated 21.6.2013 was not a bonafide application. He has further submitted that the Badminton Association of India, the apex sport body, under the authority of law and in compliance of the terms and conditions of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011, had granted the status of State Unit to one Delhi Capital Badminton Association of India. The Delhi Badminton Association challenged this decision and has been involved in some litigation with the Badminton Association of India before the Delhi High Court. The CPIO contends that in view of the foregoing, the RTI application was not made in a bonafide manner, but was meant to ventilate the pique which the Delhi Badminton Association developed on its failure before the Delhi High Court. In the above context, we note that the mere existence of litigation or past litigation between an RTI applicant and a public authority cannot become a ground for denial of the right of the former to make an RTI application or to consider an RTI application by him, not having been made in a bonafide manner.
14. The CPIO has also stated that most of the documents, sought by the Delhi Badminton Association, in the RTI application dated 21.6.2013, were already annexed to the writ petition No. 3326 of 2013, filed by the Delhi Badminton Association before the Delhi High Court. However, as far as we can see from the records before us, only one out of the twelve documents, sought in the above mentioned RTI application, was annexed to the writ petition.
15. The CPIO has further stated that the RTI application dated 21.6.2013 was not a bonafide application, also because while making it, the complainant forwarded its copies to the Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and all the affiliated units of Badminton Association of India. The CPIO contends that the application was in fact a publicity seeking application. In this context, we note that it is not uncommon for RTI applicants to share their applications with others or to give publicity to the information obtained through an RTI application. This also cannot be regarded as a ground to treat an RTI application as not being a bonafide application.
16. The CPIO has further contended that the RTI application dated 21.6.2013 was made by the Delhi Badminton Association through its Honorary General Secretary. Thus, the application was not made by the citizen and was not cognizable under the RTI Act. The CPIO further states that since the provisions of the RTI Act do not provide any right to Delhi Badminton Association to seek information under the said Act, there was no compulsion / legal requirement for him to provide information within a specified time frame. The CPIO has enclosed with his written submission copies of some notes exchanged between him and the First Appellate Authority, following receipt of the first appeal dated 10.8.2013 by the FAA, between 14.8.2013 and 6.9.2013, when a response was sent to the Complainant. It is seen from these notes that the CPIO contended that the application dated 21.6.2013 was not cognizable under the RTI Act and there was no requirement for him to provide the information to the Delhi Badminton Association within a period of thirty days. In a note dated 20.8.2013, the FAA agreed with the CPIO that Delhi Badminton Association through its Honorary Secretary was not authorised to seek information under the RTI Act. The FAA, however, stated that since the Delhi Badminton Association was a "chronic litigant" and a writ petition involving the issue was pending before the Delhi High Court, it was "advisable" that information sought by the Delhi Badminton Association thorugh its Honrary Secretary be provided. The FAA added, "This will not only avoid any unnecessary and unwarranted future litigation but also set this issue at rest." According to the CPIO, the information was collected following the above decision by the FAA and was forwarded to the Complainant on 6.9.2013.
17. The issue of the RTI application having been made by Shri S. P. Singh in his capacity as Honorary Secretary of the Delhi Badminton Association has already been examined in our order dated 3.3.2014 above. The CPIO contends that when he received the RTI application dated 21.6.2013, he could not have presumed that it would be followed up by the same person, viz. Shri S. P. Singh at subsequent stages. In this context, we note that the application was not from an unidentifiable representative of the Association. The name of Shri S. P. Singh was clearly mentioned as the signatory. Further, by the time of filing of the first appeal to the FAA, it had also become clear that the same individual was following up the matter, as the name of Shri S. P. Singh was clearly mentioned in the first appeal also. In this context, we also take note of paragraph 17 of the 'Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005', issued by the Department of Personnel and Training vide its Office Memorandum No. 1/4/2009IR dated 5.10.2009, which reads as follows: "The Act gives the right to information only to the citizens of India. It does not make provision for giving information to Corporations, Associations, Companies etc. which are legal entities/ persons, but not citizens. However, if an application is made by an employee or officebearer of any Corporation, Association, Company, NGO etc. Indicating his name and such employee/ office bearer is a citizen of India, information may be supplied to him/her. In such cases, it would be presumed that a citizen has sought information at the address of the Corporation etc."
The CPIO has not stated that he had any doubts about the Indian citizenship of Shri S. P. Singh.
18. In view of the foregoing, we do not agree with the CPIO's contention that the application dated 21.6.2013 was not a bonafide RTI application. We also note that the decision of the FAA in his note dated 20.8.2013, mentioned above, that the Delhi Badminton Association through its Hony. Secretary was not authorized to seek information under the RTI Act, but that information be given not only to "avoid any unnecessary and unwarranted future litigation but also set this issue at rest", did not find a mention in the reply dated 6.9.2013 sent by the Respondents. That reply was given by the Respondents with reference to the appeal dated 10.8.2013 to the FAA and the "application dated 21.6.2013 addressed to the CPIO." However, from the exchange of notes between the CPIO and the FAA, now placed before us, it is clear that the Respondents had doubts, though misplaced, about the admissibility of the application as an RTI application because of its having been submitted by Shri S. P. Singh on the letter head of the Delhi Badminton Association, describing him as the Hony. Secretary of the said Association. Further, during the hearing on 7.4.2014, the CPIO, while reiterating his written submissions, also stated that there are only three persons manning the office of the Badminton Association of India and further that during the period after submission of the RTI application, the Badminton Association of India was busy organising certain important meetings. In view of the foregoing, this case does not meet the requirement of Section 20 (1) regarding the CPIO not furnishing the information within the stipulated time "without any reasonable cause". There is also nothing to establish that the CPIO malafidely denied the request for information. Therefore, imposition of a penalty is not warranted in this case.
19. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
20. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar