Central Information Commission
Mr.Aseem Takyar vs Ministry Of Culture on 1 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000965/LS
File No.CIC/SM/C/2011/1480/LS
Appellant : 1. Shri Amrit Mehta
2. Shri Aseem Takyar
Public Authority : India International Centre, New Delhi.
Date of hearing : 01.2.2012
Date of Decision : 06.02.2012
Facts :-
This matter was initially heard on 28.12.2010. The proceedings of the day are extracted below :-
"File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000965/LS Appellant Smt. Amrit Mehta Respondent India International Centre, New Delhi Date of hearing 28.12.2010.
Date of decision 28.12.2010 Facts : Vide her letter dated 22.6.2009, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"1. Since when a series of lectures on "20th Century Novel in world Literature"
has been going in the India International Centre ?
2. Who has been organizing these lectures ?
3. The room/hall numbers, where these lectures were organized ?
The dates, on which these lectures have taken place with the names of speakers and the title of their papers/lectures etc. may also be supplied to me."
2. The Administrative Officer had responded to it vide letter dated 28.6.2009 stating therein that IIC was not a 'Public Authority' in terms of section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
3. Hence, the present appeal.
4. The appellant is not present. IIC is represented by Shri A.K. Dalela. He reiterates the stand of IIC as mentioned herein above. He is, however, directed to file an affidavit mentioning therein whether any concessions were given to IIC in the matter of allotment/leasing out of land by the Central Government and whether IIC is receiving any grants from the Central Government, Government of UT of Delhi or any State Government. The affidavit should be filed in 04 weeks time."
II. The matter was subsequently heard on 30.5.2011. The proceedings of the day are extracted below :-
"File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000965/LS (Smt Amrit Mehta Vs India International Center) Dated : 30.5.2011 This is in continuation of this Commission's proceedings dated 28.12.2010. As directed, Shri A.K. Dalela, Administrative Officer, has filed an affidavit dated 28.1.2011 which is taken on record. Paras 01 to 06 of the affidavit are extracted below :-
"(i) That I am currently working with India International Centre, 40 Max Muellar Marg, New Delhi 110003 in the capacity of Administration Officer.
(ii) That India International Centre is registered as a society under Societies Registration Act, 1860.
(iii) That the lands on which the buildings of India International Centre are situated has been allotted to it by the Land and Development Office, Ministry of Urban Affairs, GoI on a perpetual lease.
(iv) That no concessions were given to India International Centre, by the government while allotting/leasing the said land.
(v) That India International Centre is paying a lease rent to the above said department regularly.
(vi) The India International Centre is a membership Organisation and it does not receive any funds or grant from the Central or any State Government."
2. Heard today dated 30.5.2011. Appellant not present. IIC is represented Shri A.K. Dalela. He submits that India International Center has not been financed either by the Central Government or by the Govt of NCT of Delhi. The Land and Development Office of the Central Government had leased out about 06 acres of land about 05 decades back for which IIC is paying lease money to the former. According to him, IIC is not a beneficiary either of the Central Government or of Delhi Administration except for leasing out of the land in question. He, therefore, pleads that appeal may be dismissed.
3. In order to determine whether the Central Government has substantially financed the IIC, it is essential to ascertain whether the lease money paid by IIC is proportionate or near proportionate to the actual value of land leased out to it. In the premises, Shri Dalela is hereby directed to produce the following documents before the Commission :-
(i) copy of the lease deed;
(ii) evidence regarding incremental deposit of lease money with L&DO; &
(iii) audited profit and loss amount for last 03 years.
4. The matter is adjourned to 29th July, 2011 at 1030 hrs."
-2-III. Further hearing was held on 29.7.2011. The proceedings of the day are extracted below :-
"File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000965 Amrit Mehta Vs India International Center Dated : 29.7.2011 This is in continuation of this Commission's proceedings dated 30.5.2011. As scheduled, the matter is called for hearing today dated 29.7.2011. Appellant not present. IIC is represented by Shri Amod Dalila, Administrative Officer. He submits that while on way to his office, he got involved in a minor accident due to which it has not been possible for him to produce the documents before the Commission. He requests for a short adjournment.
2. In the premises, the matter is adjourned to 14.10.2011 at 1030 hrs. IIC is hereby directed to produce the documents mentioned in the previous order on the aforesaid date and also file a detailed representation in the matter."
IV. The matter was further heard on 23.1.2012. The proceedings of the day are extracted below :-
"File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000965/LS File No.CIC/SM/C/2011/001480/LS Appellant : Shri Amrit Mehta Public Authority : India International Centre.
Date of hearing : 23.01.2012
Date of Decision : 23 .01.2012
Facts :-
File No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000965/LS :-
This matter was initially heard on 28.12.2010. As the hearing remained , the matter was further heard on 30.5.2011 and 29.7.2011. On the request of the representative of Indian International Centre, the matter was adjourned to 14.10.2011. The matter, however, could not be heard on that date and was adjourned for today dated 23.01.2012.
2. In today's hearing, the appellant is not present. IIC is represented by Shri Amod K. Dalela, Administrative officer. He produces a copy of the lease deed regarding 4.6 acres of land on which India International Centre stands today. The same is perused. He seeks a short adjournment for submitting a written representation before this Commission.
No.CIC/SM/C/2011/001480/LS :-
3. This appeal filed by Shri Aseem Takyar has been transferred by the Chief Information Commissioner to this Bench. This file is merged with the original file. The matters raised in both these files will be heard and decided together.-3-
4. Both these matters are now adjourned to 01.02.2012 at 1030 hrs. The IIC will file written representation, inter-alia, on the following points :-
(i) terms and conditions of lease, including the consideration paid by IIC;
(ii) the lease rent, if any, being paid by IIC to the Central Government,;
(iii) whether the Central Government has any administrative control on the affairs of IIC;
(iv) whether IIC received any funds from the Central Government from its
inception till date; and
(v) any other relevant information.
4. It is cautioned that no further adjournment will be given."
V. The matter is further heard today dated 31.1.2012. Shri Aseem Takyar is present before the Commission. India International Centre(IIC here-in-after) is represented by Shri Amod Dalila, Administrative officer. He submits a written representation dated 1.2.2011 which is taken on record. The parties are heard.
VI. To recapitulate, the question before this Commission is whether the IIC is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. For the sake of convenience, clause
(h) of section 2 is extracted below :-
"(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted--
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any--
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"
VII. IIC is registered as Society. It is not constituted by or under the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament or by any law made by State Legislature. In this view of the matter, IIC cannot be said to be a Public Authority under sub clauses (a), (b) & (c) of clause (h) of section 2. The only question remains whether it can be said to be covered under sub clause (d) of clause (h) i.e. whether it can be said to be a body owned, -4- controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government i.e. by the Central Government or any State Government etc. In the written representation, Shri Dalela has submitted that IIC is registered as Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that it does not receive any funds or grants from the Central Government or any State Government. He has also stated that IIC was allotted land in the Institutional Area on perpetual lease on usual terms and upon payment of the then prevailing premium and ground rent. Para 04 of his representation is extracted below :-
"4. It is submitted that as had already been submitted in the Affidavit of 28th January, 2011 that :
(a) India International Centre is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
(b) India International Centre a membership Organization and does not receive any funds or grant from the Central Govt. or any State Government.
(c) IIC had been allotted land in the Institutional Area on Perpetual Lease on terms and upon payment of then prevailing premium and ground rent."
VIII. It is, thus, his plea that IIC is not a Public Authority.
IX. As directed by the Commission, he has produced a photo copy of the Memorandum Agreement signed on 22.4.1960 between the President of India and the India International Centre, New Delhi, vide which 4.69 acres of land was given on perpetual lease to IIC against deposition of Rs. 1,68,840/- with the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi. Relevant para of the agreement is extracted below :-
"AND WHEREAS the said intended Lessee has deposited with the Chief Commissioner of Delhi the sum of Rupees 1,68,840/- (Rupees one lakh, sixty eight thousand, eight hundred and forty only) being the amount agreed to be paid by the said intended Lessee to the President by way of premium for the grant to the said intended Lessee of the Lease hereinafter mentioned which deposit is to be a security to (not legible) the due performance by the said intended Leasee (not legible) of this Agreement."
X. It may also be mentioned that as per this Agreement, the yearly rent payable by IIC to the Central Government is Rs.8,442/-. It may also be mentioned that as per para XIV of the said Agreement, "the said Lease shall as nearly as circumstances will admit be in accordance with the printed form of Lease attached hereto which has been approved of by the said intended Lessee and signed by him on the date of these --------------(illegible) and shall contain covenants similar to the covenants set out in the said printed format of Lease and such other proper and appropriate covenants, clauses and conditions as may be considered by or on behalf of the President------------".
XI. The penultimate para of page 02 of the printed form is extracted below :-
-5-"The amount to be recovered by way of the lessor's share of the unearned increase will be such as may be specified in such sanction PROVIDED further that in case the transfer is made in favour of a person or institution which is not entitled to the same concessional allotment as the lessee then the lessor shall be entitled to claim hundred per cent of the unearned increase."
XII. A bare reading of the above extracts would indicate that the land in-question was given on perpetual lease to IIC, admittedly, on concessional rates. It is also significant, as noted above, that yearly rent for the impugned land was fixed @ Rs. 8,442/- and we are informed that this rent has remained unchanged during last 52 years. It needs to be emphasised that this Commission can declare an entity to be a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act if it is satisfied that it is directly or indirectly financed by the Central or the State Government. Before we apply this test to IIC, it would be expedient to refer to certain decisions of this Commission and the State Information Commissions in this regard.
XIII. The question before this Commission was whether Chandigarh Lawn Tannis Association is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Vide decision dated 22.4.2010 in File No. CIC/LS/C/2009/900377 (Amardeep Walia -Vs- Chandigarh Lawn Tannis Association), this Commission has held that CLTA is indirectly financed by the Chandigarh Administration and, therefore, it is Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. We can do no better than to extract relevant paras from the said order :-
"15. 15. Another question that comes up for consideration is whether indirect financing referred to above can be held to be substantial financing. In this context, it would be apt to rely on the Delhi High Court ruling in a similar case. Whether conditions (a) to (d) apply, S. Ravindra Bhat J, in his judgment dated 7th January, 2010, in WP(C) No. 876/2007 titled Indian Olympic Association Versus Veeresh Malik and others and other cases, has observed as under :-
"45. Now, if the parliamentary intention was to expand the scope of the definition "public authority" and not restrict it to the four categories mentioned in the first part, but to comprehend other bodies or institutions, the next question is whether that intention is coloured by the use of the specific terms, to be read along with the controlling clause 'authority ... of self government" and "established or constituted by or under" a notification. A facial interpretation would indicate that even the bodies brought in by the extended definition :
(i) "Body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) Non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government."-6-
are to be constituted under, or established by a notification, issued by the appropriate government. If, indeed, such were the intention, sub-clause (i) is a surplusage, since the body would have to be one of self government, substantially financed, and constituted by a notification, issued by the appropriate government. Secondly - perhaps more importantly, it would be highly anomalous to expect a 'non-government organization" to be constituted or established by or under a notification issued by the government. These two internal indications actually have the effect of extending the scope of the definition "public authority"; it is, thus, not necessary that the institutions falling under the inclusive part have to be constituted, or established under a notification issued in that regard. Another significant aspect here is that even in the inclusive part, Parliament has nuanced the term; sub-clause (i) talks of a "body, owned, controlled or substantially financed" by the appropriate government (the subject object relationship ending with sub-clause (ii). In the case of control, or ownership, the intention here was that irrespective of the constitution (i.e. it might not be under or by a notification), if there was substantial financing, by the appropriate government, and ownership or control, the body is deemed to be a public authority. This definition would comprehend societies, co-operative societies, trusts, and other institutions where there is control, ownership, (of the appropriate government) or substantial financing. The second class, i.e. non- government organization, by its description, is such as cannot be "constituted" or "established" by or under a statute, or notification."
"46. The term "non-government organization" has not been used in the Act. It is a commonly accepted expression. Apparently, the expression was used the first time, in the definition of "international NGO" (INGO) in Resolution 288(X) of ECOSOC on February 27, 1950 as "any international organization that is not founded by an international treaty". According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongovernmental organization..accessed on 28.12.2009 @ 19:52 hrs) "...Non-governmental organization (NGO) is a term that has become widely accepted as referring to a legally constituted, non-governmental organization created by natural or legal persons with no participation or representation of any government. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status and excludes government representatives from membership in the organization. Unlike theterm intergovernmental organization, "non-governmental organization" is a term in general use but is not a legal definition. In many jurisdictions these types of organization are defined as "civil society organizations" or referred to by other names..."-7-
Therefore, inherent in the context of a "non-government" organization is that it is independent of government control in its affairs, and is not connected with it. Naturally, its existence being as a non-state actor, the question of its establishment or constitution through a government or official notification would not arise. The only issue in its case would be whether it fulfills the "substantial financing"
criteria, spelt out in Section 2(h). Non-government organizations could be of any kind; registered societies, co-operative societies, trusts, companies limited by guarantee or other juristic or legal entities, but not established or controlled in their management, or administration by state or public agencies."
16. The term "substantially financed has also been interpreted in the same judgment and it has been held that 'majority' test is not appropriate to decide whether or not a non- Government organisation is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the appropriate Government. It has been explained that financing in percentage terms in relation to the total budget of the body is not important. To quote :-
"60. This court therefore, concludes that what amounts to "substantial"
financing cannot be straight-jacketed into rigid formulae, of universal application. Of necessity, each case would have to be examined on its own facts. That the percentage of funding is not "majority" financing, or that the body is an impermanent one, are not material. Equally, that the institution or organization is not controlled, and is autonomous is irrelevant; indeed, the concept of nongovernment organization means that it is independent of any manner of government control in its establishment, or management. That the organization does not perform - or pre-dominantly performs - "public" duties, too, may not be material, as long as the object for funding is achieving a felt need of a section of the public, or to secure larger societal goals. To the extent of such funding, indeed, the organization may be a tool, or vehicle for the executive government's policy fulfillment plan. This view, about coverage of the enactment, without any limitation, so long as there is public financing,
---------------"
18. Earlier to this, a similar view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in his judgment dated 25.02.2008 in DAV College Trust and Management Society & Ors
-Vs- Director of Public Instructions & Ors :-
"A perusal of the definition of 'public authority' shows that 'public authority' would mean any authority or body or institution established or constituted apart from other things by the notification issued by an order made by the appropriate Government. It is to include even any body owned, controlled or substantially financed or non-Government Organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. It is undisputed that the petitioners are receiving substantially grant-in-aid from -8- the Chandigarh Administration. Once a body is substantially financed by the Government, the functions of such body partake the character of 'public authority'. The definition of expression public authority would include any organisation/body owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or in directly by funds provided by the Government or even the non-government organization which is substantially financed. The petitioner has claimed that they are getting only 45% grant-in-aid after admitting that initially the grant-in-aid paid to them was to the extent of 95 % which was given initially allowing the petitioner to build up its own infrastructure and reducing the grant-in-aid later would not result into an argument that no substantial grant-in-aid is received and, therefore, it could not be regarded as 'public authority'. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the stance taken by the petitioner that it is not a 'public authority'.
19. The gravamen of the above judgments is that for a private entity to qualify to be a public authority, substantive financing does not mean 'majority' financing. What is important is that the funding by the appropriate Government is achieving a "felt need of a section of the public or to secure larger societal goals." The ratio of the above judgments, particularly of Delhi High Court, applies to the present case on all the fours. A huge property has been placed at the disposal of CLTA by the Chandigarh Administration at a notional rental of Rs. 100/- per annum. Besides, grant of one lakh rupees was also given to CLTA in FY 2008-09. Concededly, CLTA fulfills the felt need of a section of the society by way of imparting training to the budding tennis players. It is, therefore, held that CLTA is a Public Authority."
XV. It may also be apt to refer to the order dated 16.08.2009 of the State Information Commission, Punjab, in this connection wherein the State Commission held that Jalandhar Gymkhana is a Public Authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The main ground adduced by the said Commission for holding so is that a huge chunk of land was leased out by the Punjab Government to the Jalandhar Gymkhana at a total rental of Rs.889/- per annum in 1958. Para 8(b) of the said order is extracted below :-
"(b) Financial Support.
(i) 216344 Sq. ft. of land contiguous to the Residence Commissioner
Jallandhar Division was leased out by the Government of Punjab to the Jullunder Gymkhana at a token rental of Rs. 889/- per annum in 1958. No details of this lease have been submitted by the respondent. In fact, Commissioner Jallandhar Division, who is also President of the said Club, in his affidavit dated 9.7.2009 has specifically stated that :-
i) That the Club is functioning since 1958.
(ii) That as per Revenue record the land is in the name of
Commissioner Residence jallandhar Division.
(iii) That all Govt. lands belong to Provincial Govt. and in charge of such Govt. lands is Punjab PWD(B/R) Department.
-9-(iv) That it is not clear from Commissioner office record and XEN PWD (B/R) Jalandhar that with whose office such lease agreement took place.
(v) That the club is depositing lease money every year with the PWD Department meaning by there might had some agreement with the Govt. Department.
(vi) That inspite of our best efforts to locate such agreement in the office of Commissioner as well as in the office of XEN, PWD, lease agreement could not be traced."
(ii) The said club has a covered area of approximate 47000 sq. ft. The facilities provided by the Club are 6 Tennis Courts, 2 Indoor Wooden Floor Badminton Courts, Squash Court, Billiards Room, Card Room, Swimming Pool, Health Club Gym with equipment, Yoga hall, Sauna Steam Bath, Jacuzzi Bath and Ladies Beauty Parlour, Library Room, Open Air Stage, Cable TV, Movie Shows, Cultural Programs, Sports Competitions, Restaurant, Kitty Hall, Bar, Family Bar, 3 Guest Rooms, Generators, Tube-well, Lounge and Parking facility. The club has a patronage of 3700 members, Construction in the form of renovation and improvement with no proper sanction on a leased piece of land has been undertaken since 1999. As per records available expenditure incurred on improvements and renovation is approximate Rs. 3 crores. Only document placed on record is a copy of the counterfoil issued by Municipal Council, Jallandhar dated 15.7.2008 which relates to 'malba clearance' and specifically states that 'plan be issued subject to the desion(decision) Govt for composition". How has such a plan been approved without referring to the Lease Document and construction carried out has not been explained ?
(iii) The net income of the club for the financial year ending 31.03.2008 was Rs. 1,02,84,466.84. The various balance sheets/income and expenditure accounts placed on the record show that huge amounts of money have been generated/earned by the club through contribution/receipts from members, interest earned on various fixed deposits and income from premises/facilities. Some of the activities are purely commercial in nature."
XVI. We may further add that the Sutlej Club, Ludhiana, was also held to be a Public Authority by the State Information Commission, Punjab, vide order dated 8.7.2010 in CC NO.475 OF 2010. Paras 04 & 05 of the said order are extracted below :-
"4. Accordingly, the ownership of the land was got verified through the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. It has emerged through inspection of revenue record that the land is owned by the Provincial Government. It has also come on record that certain funds were provided for the initial construction of this Club by the State. These facts leave no doubt that there is substantial financial assistance by the State Government to the Respondent Club. The fact that the valuable land upon which the Club has been constructed belongs to the -10- Government and no rent/lease is paid by the Club to the Government shows that there is substantial financial assistance by the State to the respondent. Funding may be direct or indirect. It may consist of contribution to revenue expenditure or providing the infrastructural facilities. In fact, the cost of providing prime land for the Club, as has been done in the case of the Respondent, would be much more than its normal revenue expenditure. Apart from providing the land free of cost for construction of the Club building, the government has also incurred a part of expenditure on the construction the Club. This militates strongly against the Respondent Club being a purely private body. In addition, as per Rule 24 of the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Club, "The Deputy Commissioner of Ludhiana shall always be the President in his ex-officio capacity". As the ex-officio President, the Deputy Commissioner, a Public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act "can" access any information about the affairs of the Club. Therefore, information pertaining to the Club is accessible under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act.
5. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the Respondent Club is a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Accordingly, the requisite information will be provided by 30.7.2010 to the Complainant."
XVII. We would like to emphasise that the aforesaid decisions of this Commission as also decisions of the State Information Commission, Punjab, inter-alia came up for consideration before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19224/2006( The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. -Vs- State Information Commission, Punjab) and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 9.5.2011 held the aforesaid entities to be Public Authority in terms of section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Para 87 of the judgment is extracted below :-
"87. For the reasons depicted hereinabove it is hereby held that, inter-alia, if the epitome of the facts (i) that the petitioner-Institutions cannot come into existence and function unless registered and regulated by the provisions; (ii) the control of the State Government over them, through the medium of the provisions of the indicated Acts/Rules, (iii) substantially financed by the funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government, (iv) the mandate and command of the provisions of the RTI Act; (v) their public dealing, (vi) preamble, aims, objects and regime of this Act, (vii) the larger public interest and totality of the other facts and circumstances emanating from the records, as described hereinabove, are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inevitable and inescapable that the petitioner-institutions squarely fall within the ambit and scope of definition of public authorities and are legally required to impart the indicated informations to the complainants as envisaged under the RTI Act. If the contrary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-Institutions are accepted, then to me, it will nullify the aims and objects of the RTI Act, pertetuating and inculcating the injustice to the larger public interest in general and to the complainants in particular in this context. "-11-
XVIII. In view of the above discussion, it clearly emerges that a huge chunk of land measuring 4.69 acres was allotted to IIC in 1968 at a premium of Rs. 1,68,840/- only, obviously, at a concessional rate. The agreement between the parties expressly speaks of concessional allotment of land. Further, IIC was required to pay rent of Rs. 8,442/- per year to the Central Government and this amount has remained unchanged during the last 52 years. This is also clearly indicative of the rent being nominal/concessional in nature. These facts clearly establish that the Central Government has indirectly financed IIC. The RTI Act does not define 'substantial financing'. The expression 'substantial financing' has to be interpreted in the context of a specific case. This has been so held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 19224/2006( The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. -Vs- State Information Commission, Punjab) extracted above. Considering the fact that a huge chunk of land was allotted to IIC in 1960 in the very heart of the capital city of Delhi at a premium of Rs.1,68,840/- only and also considering the fact that IIC is paying rent of only Rs. 8,442/- per year to the Central Government over all these years, in our opinion, amounts to indirect substantial financing of IIC by the Central Government. In this view of the matter, we hold that IIC is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
XIX. In view of the above, the Director, India International Centre, New Delhi, is hereby directed to appoint a CPIO and the First Appellate Authority in 06 weeks time. After such appointment, the CPIO will decide the impugned RTI applications as per law. The appellants will have the liberty to file first and second appeals as per section 19 of the RTI Act, if they are dissatisfied with the decisions of CPIO/AA, as the case may be.
Order reserved and pronounced today dated 6th February, 2012.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma) Central 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.
( K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri Amod Dalila, Administrative officer, India International Centre, 40, Max Muller Marg, New Delhi-110003.
2. Shri Amrit Mehta, J-3/C, Lajpat nagar-III, New Delhi.
3. Shri Aseem Takyar, Plot No. 144, Phase-I, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-122016.