Central Information Commission
Mr.Parminder Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 August, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/C/2011/000648
Date of Decision : August 03, 2011
Parties:
Complainant
Secretary, Nyay Dhara [NGO],
J41, 1st Floor,
Bander wali Khui,
Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 015
Respondent
CPIO, Office of the Sub Registrar, Nand Nagri, Delhi Information Commissioner(s) : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit _________________________________________________________________ Decision Notice The Commission dismisses the instant Complaint on the ground as mentioned in the detailed order. In the Central Information Commission at New Delhi File No: CIC/SG/C/2011/000648 ORDER
1. An RTI application was filed on 20.04.2011 by the Applicant in the capacity of the Secretary of a Registered NGO named Nyay Dhara before the PIO, O/o Sub Registrar, Nand Nagri, Delhi seeking information about:
(i) the quantum of documents regarding sale and purchase situated within the local limits of jurisdiction of the said Public Authority, including information whether the registered documents were supported with sanction plan or otherwise; and
(ii) whether sanctioned/approved building plan issued by a competent authority is required to be shown at the time of registration of the documents with respect to the sale of the property as mentioned above. Upon non receipt of any response from the PIO, despite expiry of the mandated period, a Complaint was filed before the Central Information Commission on 17.06.2011 by the Secretary of the NGO, Nyay Dhara.
2. Perusal of the records in the case indicate that the primary fact that both the RTI application as well as the Complaint before this Commission do not bear the name of the signatory make the case at hand liable to be dismissed. The name of the office bearer is only indicated on the letter head of the NGO which does not reveal whether though the name of the signatory of the RTI application and the Complaint cannot be ascertained therefrom. It is therefore clear that the information has been sought by the organisation, through the Secretary of the NGO, named Nyay Dhara and not a citizen as defined under Section 3 of the RTI Act 2005. Hence the well settled position of law as laid down in various earlier decisions of the Commission is relied upon to decide the case at hand.
3. In the Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00336 dated 9/5/2006 titled as Shri D.N. Sahu versus Land & Development Office, the Commission had held "......... Although the Act guarantees right to information only to a citizen, in the instant case, the appellant is seeking information on behalf of other members of the Association, or simply a group of citizens, not a body corporate. The basic objective of the Act is to give information, rather than to withhold or deny a right...". The celebrated case of The Secretary, The Cuttack Tax Bar Association versus The Commissioner of Income TaxVII being Case No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 dated 03.03.2008 also discussed the similar issue "......The application was signed by the Secretary, Shri Gopinath Padhi whose name as an individual can be ascertained only from the Letter Head of the Association and his signature perse does not signify identity of the signatory. The first appeal has also been filed, not in the name of any individual citizen, but by the Secretary, Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda who seems to have subsequently taken over as Secretary of the Association. Similarly, the 2nd appeal before this Commission has not been filed in the name of any individual citizen but by the Secretary of the Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda as Secretary for and on behalf of the Association. From this, it is clear that the signatories to the application and the appeal under the R.T.I. Act are two distinct individuals......" However even while dismissing the appeals it was clearly held that ".....The party will, however, still have the liberty to make a de novo application but in such cases it must be an application of one or some of its members, in their capacity as citizens....". The case of M M Lal versus Customs Department was dismissed vide decision dated 24th June 2009 clearly reconfirms this issue while holding that Every citizen is a person but the vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.
4. In view of the contents of foregoing decisions of the Commission and the facts of the case at hand, it is evident that the instant case is also not maintainable since only a citizen of India can seek information under RTI Act 2005 whereas in the instant case, the documents viz. the RTI application and the Complaint before the CIC were signed simply by the Secretary of the NGO, Nyay Dhara. Thus the Applicant is effectively Nyay Dhara which is not a natural person and hence not a citizen eligible to acquire information under provisions of the RTI Act 2005 in sync with the constant position as held in all the aforementioned cases where information has been denied on the ground that the information has not been sought by a "citizen" as defined under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. Hence it is observed by the Commission that in the instant case, the Applicant is not entitled to the information in the capacity of a "citizen" as understood and defined under Section 3 of the RTI Act 2005.
5. The Complaint is thus dismissed on the above terms. However, the Applicant shall be at liberty to make a de novo application, provided it is an application signed by an individual person in the capacity of a citizen as defined under the RTI Act 2005. The PIO is hereby directed to take action as per the Act, upon receipt of such application.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Secretary, Nyay Dhara [NGO], J41, 1st Floor, Bander wali Khui, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi - 110 015
2. CPIO, Office of the Sub Registrar, Nand Nagri, Delhi
3. Officer in charge, NIC