A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Information was not provided by the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Waqf and FAA’s order was also not complied; PIO abstained from hearing - CIC issued a SCN to the present PIO and the then PIO for imposing penalty u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: The composition of M/s Electron & Computer Soft. Export Promotion Council & Council for leather Exports & M/s Carpet Export Promotion Council are the same; Wait for the decision of Supreme Court in ECSEPC which would equally be applicable to all

22 Jul, 2016

Presence:

Appellant : Absent

CPIO : Sh. Ishaan Madan, Learned Advocate and Sh. N K Guin, Executive Director cum Secretary

A) FACTS: CIC/RM/A/2014/002571/KY I. Vide RTI application dated 05.02.2014, the appellant sought information on 6 issues.

II. CPIO, vide its response dated 04.03.2014, reportedly not provided the information to the Appellant.

III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 12.03.2014, as desired information not provided.

IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 04.04.2014, upheld the decision of CPIO.

V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 11.04.2014, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.

B) FACTS: CIC/RM/A/2014/002572/KY

I. Vide RTI application dated 15.02.2014, the appellant sought information on ten issues.

II. CPIO, vide its response dated 07.03.2014, reportedly not provided the information to the Appellant.

III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 12.03.2014, as desired information not provided.

IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 04.04.2014, upheld the decision of CPIO.

V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 11.04.2014, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.

C) FACTS: CIC/RM/A/2014/002577/KY

I. Vide RTI application dated 07.02.2014, the appellant sought information on seven issues.

II. CPIO, vide its response dated 07.05.2014, reportedly not provided the information to the Appellant.

III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 12.03.2014, as desired information not provided.

IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 04.04.2014, upheld the decision of CPIO.

V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 11.04.2014, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.

HEARING

Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.

DECISION

It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 05.02.2014, 15.02.2014 & 07.02.2014, sought information from the respondents on 6, 10 & 7 issues respectively. Respondents, vide their response dated 04.03.2014, 07.03.2014 & 07.05.2014, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FAs were filed by the appellant on 12.03.2014 (3 in nos.) before the FAA, who vide his orders dated 04.04.2014 (3 in nos.), upheld the decision of CPIO.

2. During hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by Sh. Ishaan Madan, Learned Advocate, on behalf of respondents, that a similar matter i.e. Electron & Computer Soft. Export Pro. Council vs. Central Information Commission is pending before Hon. Supreme Court of India, who vide its order dated 05.01.2009, has also granted Interim Stay in the matter. It is also submitted by Shri Ishaan, that composition of M/s Electron & Computer Soft. Export Pro. Council & M/s Carpet Export Promotion Council are the same. thus, if Hon. Supreme Court of India concludes that M/s Electron & Computer Soft. Export Pro. Council falls within the ambit of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. public authority. Automatically M/s Carpet Export Promotion Council would also covers under section 2(h) “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 law 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 organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “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 law 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 organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act 2005. Let the Hon. Supreme Court decide the issue under reference, till then, the cases may be abated.

3. It is further submitted by Sh. Ishaan Madan, Learned Advocate, that RTI Act 2005 is not applicable to the respondent’s Council i.e. Carpet Export Promotion Council. To substantiate his version he also produced CIC’s earlier order dated 22.11.2012, passed by Shri Satyananda Mishra, Hon. Chief Central Information Commissioner, dealt in file no. CIC/SM/C/2012/000637, in similar case of Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs. Council for leather Exports. As per the contents of CIC’s earlier order (supra), the case was disposed of by observing as under:

“4. During the hearing today the Respondent submitted that the CIC had in the past declared similar Export promotion bodies as public authorities and in one such case that of the electronic and computer Software export promotion council the order of the CIC had challenged in the Delhi High Court which Had upheld its order however the supreme court of India has granted leave against the decision of the Delhi High court and granted interim stay (SLP No. 30164/2008). Therefore by implication the order of The CIC is now under that stay he submitted that instead of passing an order in the present case on Whether the CLE should be declared as a public authority it would be prudent to await the final decision By the supreme court in the matter he argued that the position of the CLE was no different from the one In whose case the Supreme Court had given the stay.

5. Although stay granted in case of one export promotion council would not Necessarily cover all other such export promotion councils the present one the Principle involved for declaring such bodies as public authorities under the right to Information (RTI) Act is more or less the same therefore, it would be practical and prudent to await the final outcome in the case pending before the Supreme Court once the issue is Settled it would be clear if the CLE is a public authority or not we would like to advise the Complainant to agitate this matter after the Supreme Court disposes of the above matter.”

4. The Commissioner heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI applications dated 05.02.2014, 15.02.2014 & 07.02.2014, respondent’s responses dated 04.03.2014, 07.03.2014 & 07.05.2014, FAA’s orders dated 04.04.2014 (3 in nos.), other material made available on record and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeals. The Commission observed that composition of M/s Electron & Computer Soft. Export Pro. Council, M/s Council for leather Exports & M/s Carpet Export Promotion Council are the same. Thus, it would be in a fitness of things that if Hon. Supreme Court pronounces his final judgment in favor of M/s Electron & Computer Soft. Export Pro. Council, it would equally be applicable to same nature of Council i.e. M/s Council for leather Exports & M/s Carpet Export Promotion Council. As such we may await the final judgment of Hon. Supreme Court of India in the similar matter pending before it.

5. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justified to also abate the present case (three cases) till final hearing of Hon. Supreme Court of India [as mentioned in CIC’s earlier order (supra)]. In case, if Hon. Supreme Court of India decides the case in favor of “M/s Electron & Computer Soft. Export Pro. Council”, then the present case i.e. “Carpet Export Promotion Council” will also dehors under Section 2(h) “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 law 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 organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “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 law 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 organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act 2005, otherwise, the present cases will be reopened if appellant will move a simple application in this regard. With these observations, the captioned cases are herby abated. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.

(M.A. Khan Yusufi)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Verma v. M/o Textiles, Carpet Export Promotion Council in Files No. CIC/RM/A/2014/002571/KY CIC/RM/A/2014/002572/KY CIC/RM/A/2014/002577/KY

CIC: The composition of M/s Electron & Computer Soft. Export Promotion Council & Council for leather Exports & M/s Carpet Export Promotion Council are the same; Wait for the decision of Supreme Court in ECSEPC which would equally be applicable to all

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.