Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 19 July, 2019

                               के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/MOIAB/A/2018/125800/SD

Rakesh Kumar                                                 .... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Broadcasting Foundation,
B-304, Ansal Plaza,
Third Floor, Khelgaon Marg,
New Delhi                                                .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   29/09/2017
CPIO replied on                   :   No Reply
First appeal filed on             :   05/12/2017
First Appellate Authority order   :   No Order
Second Appeal dated               :   18/04/2018
Date of Hearing                   :   16/07/2019
Date of Decision                  :   16/07/2019

             lwpuk vk;qDr             :       fnO; izdk"k flUgk
   INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                 DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA

Information sought

:

The Appellant sought reason for not banning the program "Kaun Banega Crorepati" for creating monopoly among the mobile companies especially Reliance Jio and stopping the citizens from participating who do not have Reliance Jio connection etc. Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Radhakrishna, Secretary, Ashish Sinha, SG, BCCC, Nitin Sharma, Advocate and Sohrab Singh Mann, Advocate, Indian Broadcasting Foundation, Khelgaon Marg, New Delhi present in person.

Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. Appellant further stated that as a citizen of India he is entitled to know the information sought in the instant RTI Application.

Nitin Sharma, Advocate of the Respondent in his detailed written submissions explained that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, instead, it is an autonomous body which was set up in the year 1999 to promote, encourage and secure the Indian television industry. He further submitted that IBF is an apex body of national and regional television broadcasters/channels of India and as such, the Respondent office has 59 members with 387 network channels out of which 38 members with 274 network channels are non-news channels falling under the ambit of Broadcasting Content Complaints Channel (BCCC). Subsequently, he apprised the factum of IBF being controlled and funded by annual subscription from its members and that they are not owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly in any manner, whatsoever, as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

He furthermore submitted that the instant RTI Application dated 29.09.2017 does not fall within the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He also brought the attention of the bench to the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors vs. State of Kerala & Ors. for deciding the applicability of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

File No : CIC/MOIAB/A/2018/125800/SD Decision Commission upon perusal of facts on record as well as the proceedings during hearing concedes with the reliance of the Respondent office placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 in the matter of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Commission further observes that there is nothing on record to prove that the Respondent office is a public authority as per the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

In the instant case, Appellant has not provided any additional detail except reiterating the information sought in the RTI Application. More so, the information sought in the RTI Application are in the form of seeking clarification/interpretation of the CPIO, which is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

In the absence of any substantial contention or documents on record to satisfy the parameters laid down in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, Commission is of the considered opinion that Respondent office cannot be termed as a public authority. Accordingly, no relief is ordered in the mater.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                           Divya Prakash Sinha ( द   काश िस हा)
                                         Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत         त)


Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140/ [email protected]
हरो साद सेन,उप-पंजीयक
 दनांक / Date

                                         3