Central Information Commission
Ravindra Bhagwat vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 13 October, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/MOURB/C/2018/142364
Ravindra Bhagat ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
All India Institute of Local Self ... ितवादी /Respondent
Government, Head Office, Plot No. 6,
F-Block, M.N. Roy Human
Development Campus, T.P.S. Road-
12, Behind Teacher Colony, Bandra
East, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
Complaint: 15.06.2018 &
RTI : Not on record FA : Not on record
05.07.2018
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing: 05.10.2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed a complaint with the Commission on 15.06.2018 and again on 05.07.2018 regarding non-compliance of the provisions of R.T.I. Act, 2005 by All India Institute of Local Self Government, Plot No.6, F-Block , M. N. Roy Human Development campus, T.P.s Road No.2, behind Teacher colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. The complainant alleged that Institute being a public authority it has obligations u/s 4(a) &(b) of the R.T.I. Act,2005. However Institute's website does not display the information.
Page 1 of 62. The RTI application and the CPIO response are not on record, as the complainant has admitted that he has not filed the same.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent was represented through its counsel Shri Roshan Lal Gupta who attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The complainant submitted their written submissions dated 13.09.2020 and the same has been taken on record. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 22.09.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that the respondent public authority was established in 1926. It has 30 regional centers spread across the country. The Institute anchors the Regional Centre of Urban and Environmental studies (RCUES) of the Ministry of urban Development, Government of India for western India Region. It runs numerous training courses, seminar and conferences. For these activities it receives grant in aid from the Government. The complainant further stated that the Institute has also organized several programmes for various countries in South Asia. The complainant submitted that in view of the above this Institute is a public authority according to provision of Sec 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Being a public authority it has obligations as per Section 4(a) and (b) of the RTI Act,2005. However the Institute's website does not display the information as required by Sec. 4 of the Act. The complainant further submitted that All India Institute of Local Self Government is a public authority as is evident from the decision of CIC in case No CIC/RM/C/2013/000145 dated 05 November, 2013. The complainant further submitted that Institute receives grant from Government, Indian Administrative Service officers are sent there on deputation. The complainant stated that penalty should be imposed on the Directors for non- compliance of RTI Act. On query from the Commission that whether he has any documentary proof that the respondent is a public authority and has substantially funded by the Government. The response of complainant is negative and he stated that he presumed by seeing their website and some brochure that the respondent is a public authority.
6. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint filed by complainant is against law and facts as the respondent does not fall within the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005. Moreover, the respondent herein is not a public authority in any manner whatsoever, as repeatedly alleged by the Page 2 of 6 complainant in his complaint. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the Complainant has directly filed above Complaint before the Commission without first approaching the respondent. He stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file above complaint against the respondent nor has any locus standi to approach the Hon'ble Commission under RTI Act. The counsel for the respondent argued that to apply the said RTI Act, the AIILSG must fall within the definition of Public Authority defined under Section 2(h) of the said Act and the AIILSG is not falling under any of the categories mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of the first part of the definition of Public Authority. The Clause (d) of definition of Public Authority deals with institute or body established or constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government. The second part of the definition as well as definition of "appropriate government" refers to substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly. The AIILSG is not established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly. The words "substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly" are very important, which indicate that mere receipt of funds provided directly or indirectly by State or Central Government is not sufficient but such funds should be substantial. In case of AIILSG the funds received for Centre of Urban and Environmental Studies of Government of India is not substantial compared to total turnover of the AIILSG. He stated that the respondent also carries on other activities and resources of revenue generation which are sufficient for its existence and maintenance. The counsel for the respondent further apprised that the respondent is a Non-Governmental Organization and is not financed in any way by any Government what to speak of substantially financed by any appropriate Government. The respondent is only a Registered Society duly registered with the Charity Commissioner (like a Registrar of Societies in other States), Greater Bombay vide Registration no. BOM/180/70 G.B.B.S.D. dated 22nd October 1970. The counsel for the respondent further referred to the Supreme Court judgment namely Thalappalam Ser Coop, Bank Versus State of Kerla and others in Civil Appeal no. 9017 of 2013 decided on 07/10/20. Even if purely and only for the sake of argument it is stated that the money given by the Central Government to cover the expenditure of training programmes of RCUES approved by the Central Government, are grants to the respondent, the position is crystal clear that that would form a minute portion of the finances of the respondent. The respondent is having annual turnover of Rs.120 crores (approx.) for which no grants whatsoever, directly or indirectly are granted by any Government. Mere Page 3 of 6 funds of Rs.2 crore that too for the activities of a specific Centre housed in the respondent institution and whom the respondent provides administrative and infrastructure support, cannot by any inference said to be substantially financed. It raises its income out the fee for the courses, and other activities like training programmes (those training programmes that have no connection to the training programmes of RCUES, etc. It is a totally self-financed institution, an NGO.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observed that at no point in time has the complainant attempted to obtain or access the information from the respondent. On a query from the Commission regarding the establishment of the cause of action in the matter and the maintainability of his Complaint under the RTI Act, 2005, the complainant has not given any satisfactory response in this regard and merely submitted that his complaint is not regarding refusal of information but it is regarding non- compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission further observed the scope and ambit of Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act and the said provision states that: "(1 )Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access of records under this Act". However, in the instant matter, complainant had clarified that there had been no such request for information made on his part to the respondent.
9. The Commission further referred to the Division Bench decision in this regard in case no. CIC/RBIND/C/2017/123750 dated 20.11.2017 titled as Shailesh Gandhi Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India wherein it was observed that "It follows then this right to information had to be exercised by following the process of Section 6 and the phrase "request a:rd obtain" was contained in this very enabling provision before it finds a mention in Section 18 1(f) of the RTI Act. From the discussions above, the limited scope of Section 18 as a whole was quite predominant, and for this reason the Commission did not find it expedient to extend such dimensions to the meaning of Section 18(1)(f) of the Act so as to accommodate even the apprehensions of citizens being cited as a reason for not being able to request for information or obtain access to records or proceed on conjecture and speculations about the conduct of CPIO's of the Public Authority. In Page 4 of 6 view of the above elucidations, the instant Complaint under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act which was based on assumptions and apprehensions of complainant without any conclusive attempt at exercising the right to information was not maintainable. Moreover, on being queried by the Commission regarding the reasons for not approaching the Public Authority by filing an RTI Application, before filing the instant Complaint, no satisfactory and reasoned response was provided by the Complainant who re-iterated that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 it was not mandatory to file an RTI application prior to filing a complaint u/s 18 of the Act. From the observations and deductions made above, the instant Complaint is not maintainable under Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act due to the absence of cause of action. Moreover, the Complainant could not substantiate the reasons for not filing an RTI application with the Public Authority before filing a Complaint with the Commission".
10. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant was not maintainable ab-initio, as by and large the premise of this complaint is notional in nature, where the complainant 'believes' that the AIILSG must fall within the definition of PUBLIC AUTHORITY defined under Section 2 (h) of the said Act, which reads as follows:
"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 laws 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 State Government.
11. The Commission further observed that the respondent is not a public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act as AIILSG is not established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly and no documentary proof has been submitted by the complainant in support of his contentions.
12. Further, the complainant referred to a decision dated 05/11/2013 in case of CIC/RM/C/2013/000145 passed by the Commission, where the then Information Commissioner, it did not go into the details of the status of the Respondent's status Page 5 of 6 as "public Authority" and the order does not speak about any observation/decision to the effect that Respondent herein is a public authority or exercising any authority of any Government. Further, said order dated 05/11/2013 does not speak about that the Respondent is a public authority in any way.
13. In view of the above discussions and observations, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date: 05.10.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. All India Institute of Local Self Government, Head Office, Plot No. 6, F-Block, M.N. Roy Human-
Development Campus, T.P.S. Road-12, Behind Teacher Colony, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.
2. Ravindra Bhagat, Page 6 of 6