Central Information Commission
Atul Dev vs Aero Club Of India on 11 April, 2022
CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639
In the matter of:
Atul Dev ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/ Under Secretary
Ministry of Civil Aviation
'B' Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjund Airport,
New Delhi-110003
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 22.12.2019
CPIO replied on : 01.01.2020
First Appeal filed on : 27.02.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 11.03.2020
Second Appeal received on : 03.06.2020
Date of Hearing : 04.01.2022, 24.03.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Atul Dev participated in the hearing through intra-video
conferencing from Central Information Commission.
Respondent: Shri Vikas Kumar Dubey, Section Officer participated in the hearing
through intra-video conferencing from Central Information Commission.
Page 1 of 16
CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 22.12.2019 seeking information on the following six points:
"Aero Club of India (U99999DL1910PLC000170, a Company registered with the Registrar of Companies and working under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, has recently carried our full revision of the Articles of Association without going through due process nor having a proper quorum at the EGM at which they are supposed to pass the entire new Articles of Association. These revised Articles of Association have been submitted by the Management of the Company to the Registrar of Companies with the statement that these have been passed after due process and have the approval of the General Body of Aero Club of India. You are requested to provide copies of the following documents:
1. Copy of Original Articles of Association of Aero Club of India.
2. Copy of Revised/Amended Articles of Aero Club of India, as revised in 2016/2017.
3. Copy of Minutes of EGM at which Revised/Amended Articles of Association were approved by the General Body of Aero Club of India.
4. Copies of Objections/Observations received, if any, from the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, on submission of revised Articles of Association of Aero Club of India.
5. Copy of Approval letter under which the Revised/Amended Articles of Association of Aero Club of India were approved by Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India.
6. Copy of Notice under which the Revised/Amended Articles of Association of Aero Club of India were promulgated to Members of Aero Club of India after they were duly approved by the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India.
Shri Sanjay Singh, CPIO and Under Secretary, M/o. Civil Aviation, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi vide letter dated 01.01.2020, transferred the present RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Secretary General, Aero Club of India, Constitution Club, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi and endorsed a copy of the same to the Appellant. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal Page 2 of 16 CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 dated 27.02.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.03.2020, forwarded the First Appeal to the Secretary General, Aero Club of India, Constitution Club, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi and endorsed a copy of the same to the Appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that he has not received any information from the Respondent till date. He further stated that he is a life-member of the Aero Club of India and requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that the Aero Club of India is neither a public authority nor under the care and control of the answering Respondent public authority. He further submitted that the Ministry had released grant-in-aid to the Aero Club of India till 2014 but later on no grant-in-aid was released.
The Appellant interjected to claim that around 1 crore rupees was granted to the Aero Club of India from the Ministry of Civil Aviation in 2021. He further claimed that the official website of the Aero Club of India had categorically mentioned the relevant credentials of Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authority till the date of appointment of the incumbent President and that the aforesaid credentials were eventually removed/taken off from the website for the reasons best known to the Respondent public authority. He expressed discontentment on Page 3 of 16 CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 the acts/deeds of the Respondent public authority for not handling/dealing the present RTI Application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
In response to the interjection of the Appellant, the Respondent clarified that the grant-in-aid have been issued to develop Aero Sports only.
A written communication has been received by the Commission from Shri Sanjay Singh, CPIO and Under Secretary to the Government of India, M/o. Civil Aviation vide letter dated 29.12.2021, wherein he has apprised the Commission as under:
"Subject:- Notice of hearing for appeal/ complaint - reg.
Please refer to the CIC's notice no. CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 dated 15.12.2021 regarding hearing scheduled to be held on 04.01.2022 in respect of the appeal filed by Shri Atul Dev in respect of the RTI application dated 22.12.2019.
2. The applicant through RTI request dated 22.12.2019 received on 23.12.2019 had requested to furnish copies of the documents related to ACI such as original AOA of Aero Club of India alongwith revised AOA, minutes of the EGM etc. Since, the requested information was not available with this Ministry, the RTI request was transferred to ACI for providing requisite information directly to the applicant.
3. The applicant filed an appeal dated 27.2.2021 received in the Ministry on 05.03.2021 and the same was transferred to Aero Club of India, vide letter of even number dated 11.03.2020.
4. Since, the information sought by the applicant is not available with the Ministry, no further actions is required in the matter. Central Information Commission may kindly consider the submissions for taking a view in the extant appeal."
Interim Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the representative of the Respondent public authority vide his oral arguments during the hearing posed to be unclear/unsure and the averments made speculative in nature. The Commission Page 4 of 16 CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 further observes that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat vide its Two Hundred Ninety First Report pertaining to Demands for Grants (2021-22) of Ministry of Civil Aviation (presented to the Rajya Sabha on 17.03.2021 and laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 17.03.2021), wherein it has been categorically specified as under:
"...
Aero Club of India (ACI)
23. On the issue of eviction notice issued by the AAI, to Aero Club of India, the Ministry informed that the Aero Club of India, a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 is governed by the conditions and provisions contained in its Memorandum of Association and Article of Association. The Aero Club of India is not enlisted as an organization under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. There is no Government shareholding in the Aero Club of India.
The budgetary allocation to ACI was made against the object head "Grants-in-aid to AeroClub of India for development of Aero Sports" under "Grants for creation of Capital Assets ( Plan)" under the Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Aero Club of India, in the past, has been provided grants in aid for development of aerosports. The grants were sanctioned to ACI for procurement of various aerosports equipment and activities. The sanction providing grants in aid to ACI for procurement of these equipment/related services was subject to certain specific conditions laid down in the sanctions issued in this regard. A proposal from ACI for the FY 2021-22 seeking a total budgetary support of Rs 198 crore had been received for the procurement of aircraft (for skydiving) and gliders & winches for aerosports, establishment of additional Flying Training Organisations and infrastructure, establishment of national aviation museum and procurement of trainer aircraft for flying training & simulators. In order to enable the Ministry to examine the proposal for budgetary support, certain information/clarification has been sought from ACI on 05.01.2021. The reply from ACI is still awaited. However, in order to meet the Aero sports activities in the country, a new budgetary head (GIA to Institutions in Civil Aviation sector for Promotion / Development of Aero Sports) has been created for the FY 2021-22, with the allocation of Rs. 1.00 crore.Page 5 of 16
CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 23.1. The Committee would like the Ministry to follow up with ACI, their much awaited proposal for budgetary support. The Ministry may apprise the Committee about the response of ACI on this issue, at the earliest. 23.2. The Committee takes note of the fact that training aircrafts and adventure sports equipment which were provided by the Aero Club of India to several State Governments including the State of Rajasthan, Bangalore Flying Club and IIT Kanpur, have been lying unutilized for several years, while the Aero Club of India has been making efforts to retrieve such aircrafts that are under-utilized or un-utilized by the State Governments. The Committee recommends that ACI should be supported by the Government in retrieval of all such underutilized or unutilized aero sports assets provided by it for FTOs and development of aero sports, since they are Government property. 23.3. The Committee takes note of the fact that Aero Club of India has worked under the purview of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. ACI has also figured prominently in the Outcome Budget and the Annual Report of MoCA. Over the years, the annual audited accounts of ACI, both in English and in Hindi, are placed in both Houses of Parliament. It also has a deemed status as an autonomous body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Aero Club of India, which has a legacy and was responsible for licensing, even during the pre- independence days, has been the primary organization promoting Flying Training Organizations (FTOs) across the country, by providing them infrastructural support by means of aircrafts and equipment provided by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Committee takes note of the update that the Aero Club of India had its official location and headquarters at the Safdarjung Airport for over thirty years. The ACI building was constructed on the leased land given to them by the Ministry of Tourism. It has been observed that on the expiry of the lease period, despite performing semi-Government function of promoting of promoting the FTOs across the country, the Aero Club of India was served an eviction notice by imposing a penalty of non-extension of lease and thereafter, through a Court order, the eviction was initiated, claiming penalties. The Committee feels that since ACI is a body with the support of the Ministry of Civil Aviation itself, it deserves that the official building be restored to it in recognition of performing its role as a support and semi-autonomous body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Committee desires that the Ministry of Civil Aviation may review the matter and issue appropriate instructions to the AAI Board for re-allotment of the said premises to Aero Club of India.
..."Page 6 of 16
CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 Further, the Appellant has also made several statements during the hearing, which has merits. In this regard, the Commission relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. versus Director of Public Instructions & Ors. vide Civil Appeal No. 9828 of 2013 with Civil Appeal Nos. 9844-9845 of 2013; Civil Appeal Nos. 9846-9857 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 9860 of 2013 decided on 17.09.2019, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"25. ... In this regard, we may again make reference to the judgment in the Thalapplam case (supra) wherein this Court dealing with the issue of substantially financed made the following observations:-
"47. We often use the expressions "questions of law" and "substantial questions of law" and explain that any question of law affecting the right of parties would not by itself be a substantial question of law. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) the word "substantial" is defined as "Substantial.- Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. ... Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. ... Synonymous with material."
The word "substantially" has been defined to mean "essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially". In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word "substantial" means "of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; solid; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure, etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough". The word "substantially" has been defined to mean "in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially intrinsically". Therefore the word "substantial" is not synonymous with "dominant" or "majority". It is closer to "material" or "important" or "of considerable value".
"Substantially" is closer to "essentially". Both words can signify varying degrees depending on the context.
48. 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. The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD, etc. but those facilities or Page 7 of 16 CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 assistance cannot be termed as "substantially financed" by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of "public authority" under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act. But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety-five per cent grant-in-aid from the appropriate Government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i)."
26. In our view, 'substantial' means a large portion. It does not necessarily have to mean a major portion or more than 50%. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Substantial financing can be both direct or indirect. To give an example, if a land in a city is given free of cost or on heavy discount to hospitals, educational institutions or such other body, this in itself could also be substantial financing. The very establishment of such an institution, if it is dependent on the largesse of the State in getting the land at a cheap price, would mean that it is substantially financed. Merely because financial contribution of the State comes down during the actual funding, will not be itself mean that the indirect finance given is not to be taken into consideration. The value of the land will have to be evaluated not only on the date of allotment but even on the date when the question arises as to whether the said body or NGO is substantially financed.
27. Whether an NGO or body is substantially financed by the government is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. There may be cases where the finance is more than 50% but still may not be called substantially financed. Supposing a small NGO which has a total capital of Rs. 10,000/- gets a grant of Rs. 5,000/- from the Government, though this grant may be 50%, it cannot be termed to be substantial contribution. On the other hand, if a body or an NGO gets hundreds of crores of rupees as grant but that amount is less than 50%, the same can still be termed to be substantially financed.
28. Another aspect for determining substantial finance is whether the body, authority or NGO can carry on its activities effectively without getting finance from the Government. If its functioning is dependent on the finances of the Government then there can be no manner of doubt that it has to be termed as substantially financed.
..."
Further, the Commission also observes that despite the answering Respondent public authority has transferred the RTI Application and the First Appeal to the Secretary General, Aero Club of India vide letters dated 01.01.2020 and 11.03.2020, the concerned official/authority has not even bothered to provide a reply to the Appellant. In fact, the Commission is baffled to note that the Appellant Page 8 of 16 CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 in his averments has asserted that the incumbent President has removed/taken off the relevant credentials of the Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority pursuant to his appointment.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the CPIO, M/o. Civil Aviation to file a detailed written submission explaining the position as to whether they are a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act or not, within 10 days from the date of issue of this order. In addition, the Commission also deems it necessary to direct the Secretary General, Aero Club of India to file a detailed written submission as to whether any reply has been provided to the Appellant in connection with the present RTI Application and First Appeal or not, within 10 days from the date of issue of this order. Further, the Commission also directs the Registry of this Bench to issue fresh hearing notice(s) both to the CPIO, M/o. Civil Aviation, 'B' Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110003 and the Secretary General, Aero Club of India, Constitution Club, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi - 110003 and re-schedule the hearing in the instant matter within 21 days from the date of issue of this order.
Be that as it may, the Appellant is also advised to file written submission corroborating his oral arguments made in the present hearing, within 10 days from the date of issue of this order.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The proceedings are hereby adjourned.
Page 9 of 16CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 PROCEEDINGS OF THE HEARING DATED 24.03.2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Atul Dev, participated in the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, Under Secretary, participated in the hearing in person.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he has not received any information from the Respondent till date. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 27.01.2022.
The Respondent submitted that Aero Club of India (ACI) is not enlisted as an organisation under the Ministry of Civil Aviation as it has no government shareholding. He further submitted that the last grants-in-aid were given to ACI by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in year 2014-15 for development of Aero Sports. He further clarified that Ministry of Civil Aviation is in process of framing National Aero Sports Policy (NASP) for organised development of aero sport activities in India and a new budget head i.e. grants-in-aid to institutions in Civil Aviation sector for promotion/development of aero sports has been created from the Financial year 2021-2022, with an allocation of Rs. 1 crore for the development of aero sport activities in India and the averred budgetary allocation is not specific for ACI.
Upon being queried by the Commission whether they can obtain the relevant information from ACI and provide the same to the Appellant, the Respondent replied in affirmative.
Page 10 of 16CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant on 27.01.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Page 11 of 16CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Sanjay Singh, Under Secretary to Government of India/CPIO, vide letter dated 27.01.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 12 of 16
CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 Final Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission refers to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
The Commission relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Poorna Prajna Public School Vs. Central Information Commission, W.P.(C) 7265/2007, which reads as under:
"8. Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously. The term ―held by or under the control of any public authority‖ in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term ―information‖ as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term ―information‖ in Page 13 of 16 CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided.
Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is ―information‖ as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term ―held by the or under the control of the public authority‖ used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public authority and the said term ―private body‖ has been used to distinguish and in contradistinction to the term ―public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access, under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished."
In view of the above, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the present CPIO to obtain the relevant information as sought in the RTI Application from the concerned custodian of the record, as agreed by the Respondent, and provide a copy of the same to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The present CPIO is further directed that while complying with the directions of the Commission, all the personal information/identifying particulars of any third parties, if any, should be adequately redacted/blackened out.
In the event, the relevant information is further not available with the record keeper, the present CPIO directed to the file an appropriate affidavit on non- judicial stamp paper stating the factum of non-availability of the relevant information.
Page 14 of 16CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands dismissed.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 11.04.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 15 of 16 CIC/AERCI/A/2020/672639 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) /Director Ministry of Civil Aviation 'B' Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-110003
2. The Central Public Information Officer / Under Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation 'B' Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-110003
3. Mr. Atul Dev Page 16 of 16