Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Ministry Of Social Justice & ... on 30 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOSJE/A/2017/152787/SD
Rakesh Kumar Sharma ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
Administrative Officer,
Shri Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayta Samiti,
Head Office, S.M.S. Hospital,
Jaipur - 302004 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2016
CPIO replied on : 29/08/2016
First appeal filed on : 19/09/2016
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal dated : 10/05/2017
Date of Hearing : 29/10/2018
Date of Decision : 29/10/2018
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of registration of the organization and details of its present employees; copy of their service rules; details of promotion of employees 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.1
Respondent: Krishna Sahai Pareek, Acct. Manager, Mahaveer Viklang Sangathan Samiti, Jaipur present in person.
Appellant stated that the Respondent office should be declared a public authority as it receives funds from government and the premises of their office exist on government land acquired on subsidy. He further stated that the Respondent office is a registered society under Societies Registration Act.
Respondent submitted that their organization is engaged in helping the physically challenged, most of them being under privileged, financially weak and below poverty line. Further stating that it provides artificial limbs, calipers and other rehabilitation aids and appliances and these are provided free of cost. That, their society meets its expenditures through donations from individuals, corporate, charitable trusts and such organizations. He furthermore submitted that occasionally they receive grants from Government of India but these are inconsequential to their expenses. He presented a copy of the audit report of past 5 years to show that the Govt. of India grants during the past five financial years aggregated to mere 4.49 % of the total expenditure. As regards, Appellant's contention that the land on which their premises function, it was submitted that the land was acquired on concessional rates from the Government and this amount has been paid by them in installments and as on date the land belongs to the organization itself.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the Appellant has not provided any facts or figures to substantiate his claim that the Respondent office is a public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of RTI Act. On the other hand, Respondent office has relied on proper documents in terms of their audit report etc. to prove that they are neither a body owned, controlled nor directly or indirectly substantially financed by the State and/or Central Government.
In view of the foregoing, Commission holds that the Respondent office is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
2
File No : CIC/MOSJE/A/2017/152787/SD
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