Central Information Commission
Kunwarsen Dhangar vs Agricultural And Processed Food ... on 8 May, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812
Kunwarsen Dhangar
.....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : 1. The CPIO Agricultural and ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Processed Food Products Export
Development Authority, 3rd Floor,
NCUI Building, 3,Siri Fort Institutional
Area, August Kranti Marg opp. Asiad
Village, New Delhi-110016
Date of Hearing : 07-05-2026
Date of Decision : 07-05-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30-06-2025
CPIO replied on : 24-07-2025
First appeal filed on : 02-08-2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 26-08-2025
2nd Appeal dated : 24-09-2025
CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30-06-2025 seeking the following information:
"क० सं० म ंगी गयी सूचन
01 एपीड क य ालय में जीएम लेवल, एजीएम लेवल, एम लेवल तक के अधिक रियों को
क य ालय क या हे तु लेपटॉप ववतिण ककए गए थे बर्ा 2023-24 एवं 2024-25 एवं 2025-26 के दौि न लेपटॉप ववतिण पि होन व ले व्यय के ब्यौिे की लेपटॉपों की संख्य ओं को अवगत कि ते हुए उन अधिक रियों न मों क भी उल्लेख किें जो लेपटॉप ववतिण योजन से ल भ न्ववत है । सत्य वपत छ य प्रततललवपयों को प्रद न किें ।
02 एपीड क य ालय ने एनसीयूआई बबन्ल्डंग में दस ू ि तल क ककि य भुगत न तीन म ह क पैंत लीस ल ख है एपीड क य ालय में स्थ ई अधिक रियो की संख्य न म, पदन म एवं एजेंसी एवं कवरे क्ट बेस अधिक रियो के न म पदन म, कमाच रियों के न म, पदन म, संख्य की सत्य वपत छ य प्रततललवपयों को प्रद न किें । 03 एनसीयूआई बबन्ल्डंग बर्ा 2023-24 एवं 2024-25 एवं 2025-26 के दौि न भ ित सिक ि द्व ि व्यय के ब्यौिे की सत्य वपत छ य प्रततललवपयों को प्रद न किें । 04 एपीड की एक श ख BEDF के न म से है बर्ा 2019 -2025-26 के दौि न BEDF द्व ि ककये गए क यो की ब वर्ाक प्रगतत रिपोटा एवं ऑडडट की सत्य वपत छ य प्रततललवपयों को प्रद न किें ।
CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 2 of 8
"क० सं० म ंगी गयी सूचन
05 भ ित सिक ि के एपीड क य ालय के अवतगात 01-03-2021 से 31-03-2025 तक
RCMC Registered Exporter की संख्य 37675 है इन एक्सपोटा िों से प्र प्त शुल्क की कुल िनि लश से अवगत कि ते हुए एपीड तनधि के ख त संख्य क बैंक स्टे टमेंट की सत्य वपत छ य प्रततयों को प्रद न किें ।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24-07-2025 stating as under:
"Point No-3, Ledger of NCUI payment for the year 2023-24,2024-25 and 2025-26 is enclosed for your reference please."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-08-2025. The FAA vide its order dated 26-08-2025, upheld the reply given by the CPIO
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Attended the hearing through video conference. Respondent: Mr. Dhirender Kumar, AGM and Mr. Saurav Agarwal, AGM, attended the hearing in person.CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 3 of 8
5. The Appellant submitted, that he sought information regarding the laptops that were distributed to GM level, AGM level, officers for office work; details of expenditure incurred on distribution of laptops during the year 2023- 24, 2024-25 etc. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the respondent.
6. The Respondent submitted, that they had provided copy of ledger of NCUI payment for point no.3; number of laptops given to officers, expenditure of those laptops to the appellant. The respondent also submitted, that they had replied to the point no. 5 vide letter dated 28.07.2025 and provided the available numerical figures to the appellant. The respondent further submitted, that the said Basmati Export Development Foundation (BEDF) does not come under the definition of public authority as defined U/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, and they had informed the same to the appellant vide letter dated 28.08.2025. The respondent elaborated that, the BEDF does not receive substantial financial support from the Government and hence, it does not come under the definition of public authority. The respondent relied on the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. State of Kerala & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 82; Adiwasi Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. V. State Information Commissioner and Anr., 2019 SCC Online Bom 1068; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111; G. Chinnathambi v. Tamil Nadu Information Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online Mad 11087; President, Madhanam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v. State Information Commissioner & Ors. 2024 SCC Online Mad 1926, to support their contention.
CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 4 of 87. The further submissions of the respondent are as below:
"a. BEDF is not constituted by the Constitution, statute, or government notification.
b. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
C. The source of income of BEDF is from the contribution made by individual exporters d. BEDF does not receive substantial financial support from Government.
e. BEDF is not owned by Government f. Objectives of BEDF are promotional and facilitative, not statutory or sovereign.
g. Funds are managed or utilized by BEDF Board h. Chairman of Querist being the Chairman of BEDF does not amount to ownership or pervasive control and makes BEDF public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. i. BEDF is managed and administered under its own Memorandum and bye-laws j. It is not "substantially financed" in the sense contemplated under RTI Act.
k. It is not "controlled" in the legal sense envisaged under Section 2(h).
CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 5 of 8 l. Judicial precedents make clear that cooperative societies not being a "public authority are not under purview of RTI. m. Therefore, BEDF does not fall within the definition of "public authority."
8. The Commission queried the appellant, as to whether he had received the letter dated 30.07.2025, 28.08.2025 and 28.07.2025. To this, the appellant submitted that he had received the aforesaid letters.
Relevant portion of the aforesaid letter dated 28.07.2025 for information against point no.5 is reproduced below:
"एपीडा का पंजीकरण शुल्क 5000 रुपए तथा जीएसटी 900 रुपए है । कुल शुल्क राशश 5900 रुपए है । निधि के खाता संख्या का बैंक स्टे टमें ट की छाया प्रनतयां प्रदाि िहीं की जा सकती। यह सूचिा का अधिकारी अधिनियम की िारा 8 (ड) के अिीि प्रकटि से छूट प्राप्त है ।"
Relevant portion of the aforesaid letter dated 28.08.2025 for information against point no.4 is reproduced below:
"मुझे उपयक् ु त अपील प्राप्त हुई है तथा अपील का अध्ययि ककया गया है । आपके द्वारा अपेक्षित जािकारी बासमती एक्सपोटु राइस डेवलपमें ट फाउं डेशि (BEDF) से सम्बंधित है एवं बीईडीएफ सूचिा का अधिकार अधिनियम की िारा 2 (एच) के तहत सावुजनिक प्राधिकरण के दायरे में िहीं आता है ।" CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 6 of 8
Decision:
9. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that during the hearing, the respondent submitted that the Basmati Export Development Foundation (BEDF) does not come under the definition of public authority as defined U/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is not substantially financed by the Government. In this regard attention of the appellant is drawn towards judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in case titled G. Chinnathambi V. Tamil Nadu Information Commission and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 11087. In this case, the Hon'ble Court had relied on the case titled Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited case i.e., (2013) 16 SCC 82, and held that the burden of proof to show that a particular body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or a non-Government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government, would lie on the shoulder of the Information Seeker. In the instant appeal, the appellant had not laid down any proof to substantiate that the said BEDF is owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. Hence, the Commission finds that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant for point no. 4.
The Commission finds that the respondent did not give an appropriate reply to the appellant against point no.5. Therefore, the respondent is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant, for point no.5, incorporating the total amount of fee received from the exporters in the said point.
10. The respondent is directed to send the aforesaid revised reply to the appellant, both by speed post & appellant's e-mail ID (as mentioned in RTI application dated 30.06.2025), within 15 days from the date of receipt of this CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 7 of 8 order, under intimation to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 07.05.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, 3rd Floor, NCUI Building, 3,Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg opp. Asiad Village, New Delhi-110016
2. The FAA, Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, 3rd Floor, NCUI Building, 3,Siri Fort Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg opp. Asiad Village, New Delhi-110016
3. Kunwarsen Dhangar CIC/APPEA/A/2025/644812 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)