Central Information Commission
Mr.Kamal Kishore Khattar vs Department Of Road Transport And ... on 27 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2010/000116
Dated, the 27 September, 2010.
th
Complainan : Shri K.K. Khattar
t
Respondent : Association of State Road Transport Undertakings
s (ASRTU) This matter came up for hearing on 06.09.2010. Complainant was present in person, while the respondents were represented by Shri Sudeep Kumar Patra, Director (Tech) and Shri R. Chandrababu, Asstt. Director.
2. Complainant, through his RTIapplication dated 17.11.2009, raised certain queries to be answered by the Executive Director of the Association of State Road Transport Undertakings (ASRTU).
3. He received a reply dated 07.12.2009 from the Administrative Officer of ASRTU to the effect that the Undertaking could not be obligated to reply to him as it was outside the purview of the RTI Act.
4. Thereafter, complainant filed his complaint dated 19.12.2009 arguing that ASRTU had all the ingredients of a public authority and the denial of information to him was wrong.
5. It is the complainant's argument that the Secretary of the Department of Transport was the exofficio Chairman of ASRTU, officers from government organizations were sent on deputation to work at the ASRTU and hence it ought to be 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
CIC_AT_C_2010_000116_M_43146.doc Page 1 of 3
6. The respondents, in their writtenstatements, have urged that the ASRTU did not satisfy any of the ingredients of 'public authority' laidout in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The organisation received no government funding, was a voluntary association of State Transport Undertakings, was registered under the Societies Registration Act as a voluntary body, was autonomous in the matter of its functioning and finances as well as personnel ― periodically, though it accepted, officers on deputation from government organizations, but their salaries were paid for by the Association. Its source of funding was the fees paid by the members and fees charged for services rendered to the members.
7. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, in their communication dated 08.06.2010, clarified that the Ministry provided no financial assistance to ASRTU, which was governed by its own byelaws as framed under the Societies Registration Act, under which ASRTU was registered as a Society.
8. Respondents have filed along with their writtensubmission a judgement of the Delhi High Court stating that ASRTU was not 'state' within the meaning of Article12 of the Constitution of India.
Decision:
9. On careful consideration of the submissions of both parties, I notice that the Association of the State Transport Undertakings was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has been the decision of this Commission in Gp. Captain M.Kapoor Vs. AWHO; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00123; Date of Decision: 29.01.2007 that the mere fact of registration under Societies Registration Act would not be enough to characterize a body as public authority.
CIC_AT_C_2010_000116_M_43146.doc Page 2 of 3
10. I have further noticed that ASRTU is a voluntary association of State Transport Undertakings created by Member Associations for facilitating the activities for which such Undertakings were established. ASRTU received no financial grants from the government. It was not created by any government order, notification or legislation. Mere fact that Secretary of the Department of Transport was the exofficio Chairman of the ASRTU and that it obtained services of government employees on deputation or loan basis ― for whom all payments were made by the ASRTU ― would not be sufficient condition for it to be designated as a public authority.
11. In view of the above, I am in agreement with ASRTU that it does not qualify to be public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
12. Complaint fails. Closed.
13. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_AT_C_2010_000116_M_43146.doc Page 3 of 3