Central Information Commission
M A Balakrishnan vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry 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/MOCMI/A/2025/115859
M A Balakrishnan .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : The Plastics Export Promotion ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Counsil, Ministry Of Commerce &
Industry, Dynasty Business Park, B
Wing, Unit No.2, Gf, Andheri Kurla
Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059.
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 : 29-01-2025
CPIO replied on : 12-02-2025
First appeal filed on : 20-02-2025
First Appellate Authority's order :
2nd Appeal dated : 20-05-2025
CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29-01-2025 seeking the following information:
"1. In the plastic export promotion council, kindly provide whether the organization functions under Govt. of India body, or private company or public limited company. Kindly provide the standard operative procedure, direction's circulars etc that governs the functioning of the plastic export promotion council.
2. Kindly management structures of the Plex, Council (EPC) such as Executive Director, Regional Directors other Executive Officer etc.
3. Kindly provide spread of branches of the Plex, Council (EPC) across the country with its Registered Head Office and also provide how many officers staff and employees have been employed in the above said organization.
4. Kindly provide who is appointing authority of the Executive Director in the Plex, Council (EPC). Kindly provide whether the Executive Director advertisements or any other procedural norms are selected and appointed through employment exchange, or open.
5. Kindly provide HR policy which governs service regulations of the Officer. Supervisors, and other employees in the organization.
6. Kindly provide details of the HR policy of the above organization till 2018 in the matter of recruitment age and retirement age of its employees and also provide such details even after 2018 to till January 2025.
7. Kindly provide the sudden and newly amended and introduced HR policy in august 2019 was as per Govt. recommendations or from any other directives kindly furnish details thereof. 8. As per new HR policy amended from Aug 2019 in the above organization in the matter of retirement age on superannuation reduced from 60 years to 58 years. Kindly provide whether such amended HR policy is continued and practiced in the Plex, Council (EPC). If so please furnish copy of the same at my cost.
9. Kindly provide date of appointment and due date of the retirement age on his superannuation of the present executive Director of the Plex, Council (EPC) Mumbai.
10. Kindly provide retirement age of all the employees on superannuation and Regional Directors of the above said council as per the existing HR policy.
11. Kindly provide details whether monthly salary payments to the Executive Director, other officers and employees are as per the Central Pay Commission Recommendation or at own directions of the Plex, Council (EPC) HR Policy Governance and which year it has been in effective in the above council.CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 2 of 8
12. Kindly furnish information above COA Chairman and its members on the board of the Plex, Council (EPC). Also furnish information whether they are Govt. Officer or privately appointed members.
13. Kindly furnish the information whether COA, Chairman and members are having any Legal Sanctity or accountability to the govt.
14. Kindly furnish joining date and retirement date of both Mr. Jaswant Soundarapandian and Develakar Regional Director & Junior Executive of the Plex Council (EPC) whether both have retired at the age of 58 years or 60 years."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12-02-2025 stating as under:
"We regret to inform you that we will be unable to provide the information sought by you vide your application dated 29.01.2025 under the Right of Information Act 2025, as we are not covered under the purview of the said Act. We are advised to believe that only entities that fall under the definition of a 'Public Authority' under Section 2(h) of the Act are bound by the provision of the said Act.
As we do not fall under the definition of a 'Public Authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right of Information Act, 2005 and hence the obligation to provide information against an application under the said Act does not arise."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20-02-2025. FAA's order, which is not adjudicated as per the record of the Commission.
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. Sribash Mahapatras, Executive Director, attended the hearing through audio conference.
5. The Appellant submitted, that he sought information regarding management structures of the Plex, Council (EPC); appointing authority of the CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 3 of 8 Executive Director in the Plex, Council etc. The appellant also submitted, that the respondent had denied the sought information on the ground that the Plastic Export Promotion Council does not come under the definition of public authority as defined U/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant further submitted that a similar matter was heard by the Commission in case no. CIC/MOCMI/A/2020/134684. The appellant contended that since, the respondent receives funding from the government, they come under the definition of public authority, and are thus amenable under the RTI Act, 2005.
6. The Respondent submitted, that the Plastic Export Promotion Council is an autonomous, non-profit company incorporated U/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent also submitted that their organization is not controlled or substantially financed by the Government. Hence, they do not come under the definition of public authority, as defined U/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent also relied on case titled D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, (2019) 9 SCC 185 to support their contention that, substantial financing must be determined on the facts of each case, including whether the body can effectively function without Government finance.
To substantiate the aforesaid claim, the respondent also submitted, that as per the audited financial statements of their organization, for the year ending 31.03.2021, the total revenue was approximately Rs. 3.55 crores, out of which the Government grant component was only about Rs. 23.59 lakhs. Hence, this clearly demonstrates that Government funding constitutes only a minimal and incidental fraction of their organization's finances and cannot, by any reasonable standard, be regarded as "substantial financing" under Section 2(h). The respondent further submitted, that the question of applicability of the RTI Act to Export Promotion Councils is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 4 of 8 Court of India in Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council v. Central Information Commission, Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2009, and connected matters.
7. Written submission dated Nil filed by the respondent is taken on record and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:
"2. The Respondent is an autonomous, non-profit company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013), and functions through its own Committee of Administration in accordance with its Memorandum and Articles of Association.
3. The Respondent is not, controlled, or substantially financed by the Government. Accordingly, it does not satisfy any of the constituent limbs of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, AIR 2019 SC 4411, has clarified that there is no rigid numerical or percentage- based formula such as a 50% threshold; instead, the question of substantial financing must be determined on the facts of each case, including whether the body can effectively function without Government finance.
14. In that matter, it was recorded that, as per the audited financial statements of the Respondent for the year ending 31.03.2021, the total revenue was approximately Rs. 3.55 crores, out of which the Government grant component was only about Rs. 23.59 lakhs. This clearly demonstrates that Government funding constitutes only a CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 5 of 8 minimal and incidental fraction of the Respondent's finances and cannot, by any reasonable standard, be regarded as "substantial financing" under Section 2(h).
18. It is pertinent that Export Promotion Councils, as a class, have taken a consistent position that they are Section 25 companies, are not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and are not "public authorities" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The broader issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. Specifically, the question of applicability of the RTI Act to Export Promotion Councils is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council v. Central Information Commission, Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2009 and connected matters.
20. In earlier proceedings, this Hon'ble Commission itself took note of the pendency of the aforesaid matter and the subsisting interim position, and accordingly adjourned the case sine die. Likewise, in Ratan Mishra v. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in File No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000996, it was specifically recorded that Export Promotion Councils have consistently maintained that they are Section 25 companies, not "State" under Article 12, and not public authorities under Section 2(h), and that the issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court."CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 6 of 8
Decision:
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the appellant sought information from the respondent organization. However, the respondent submitted, that the question of applicability of the RTI Act to Export Promotion Councils, is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council v. Central Information Commission, Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2009, and connected matters. The Commission finds, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had granted stay in the aforesaid case vide order dated 05.01.2009 and the stay is still operational. Also, the Commission heard similar matter in case no. CIC/MOCMI/A/2020/134684, filed by the instant appellant. The Commission also finds, that the adjudication of the instant appeal would be premature at this stage. Hence, no relief can be granted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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 CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
1. The CPIO The Plastics Export Promotion Counsil, Ministry Of Commerce & Industry, Dynasty Business Park, B Wing, Unit No.2, GF, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059
2. The FAA, The Plastics Export Promotion Counsil, Ministry Of Commerce & Industry, Dynasty Business Park, B Wing, Unit No.2, GF, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059
3. M.A. Balakrishnan CIC/MOCMI/A/2025/115859 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)