In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/C/2011/000646
Date of Decision : August 03, 2011
Parties:
Complainant
Mr. Parminder Singh
Secretary, Nyay Dhara [NGO],
J41, 1st Floor,
Bander wali Khui,
Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 015
Respondent
CPIO,
Office of the State Transport Authority,
Sheikh Sarai,
New Delhi
Information Commissioner(s) : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
_________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The Commission dismisses the instant Complaint on the ground as mentioned in the detailed order.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/C/2011/000646
ORDER
1. An RTI application was filed on 06.05.2011 by the Applicant acting on behalf of and in the capacity
of the Secretary of a Registered NGO named Nyay Dhara before the PIO, O/o State Transport
Authority, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi seeking information about the number of driving licences i.e.
learning, LMV, M/Cycle/scooter, heavy and commercial driving licence issued per day by the
Public Authority for the last three months. He also sought information about the procedure of
issuance of the said licence. Upon non receipt of any response from the PIO, a Complaint was
filed before the Central Information Commission on 17.06.2011 by the Secretary of the NGO, Nyay
Dhara.
2. Perusal of the records in the case establish the primary fact that both the RTI application as well as
the Complaint before this Commission do not bear the name of the signatory. It is only the RTI
Application which states the name of the Complainant though whether the same Complainant is
also the signatory therein and in the Complaint cannot be ascertained by any means. It is therefore
clear that the information has been sought by not a citizen as defined under Section 3 of the RTI
Act 2005 but by Secretary of an NGO, named Nyay Dhara. Hence the well settled position of law
as laid down in various earlier decisions of the Commission is relied upon to decide the case at
hand.
3. In the Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00336 dated 9/5/2006 titled as Shri D.N. Sahu versus Land &
Development Office, the Commission had held “……… Although the Act guarantees right to
information only to a citizen, in the instant case, the appellant is seeking information on
behalf of other members of the Association, or simply a group of citizens, not a body corporate.
The basic objective of the Act is to give information, rather than to withhold or deny a right…”. The
celebrated case of The Secretary, The Cuttack Tax Bar Association versus The
Commissioner of Income TaxVII being Case No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 dated 03.03.2008 also
discussed the similar issue “……The application was signed by the Secretary, Shri Gopinath
Padhi whose name as an individual can be ascertained only from the Letter Head of the
Association and his signature perse does not signify identity of the signatory. The first
appeal has also been filed, not in the name of any individual citizen, but by the Secretary, Cuttack
Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda who seems to have subsequently
taken over as Secretary of the Association. Similarly, the 2nd appeal before this Commission has
not been filed in the name of any individual citizen but by the Secretary of the Cuttack Bar
Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda as Secretary for and on behalf of the
Association. From this, it is clear that the signatories to the application and the appeal under the
R.T.I. Act are two distinct individuals……” However even while dismissing the appeals it was
clearly held that “…..The party will, however, still have the liberty to make a de novo
application but in such cases it must be an application of one or some of its members, in
their capacity as citizens….”. The case of M M Lal versus Customs Department was dismissed
vide decision dated 24th June 2009 clearly reconfirms this issue while holding that Every citizen is a
person but the vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a
citizen.
4. In view of the contents of foregoing decisions of the Commission and the facts of the case at hand,
it is evident that the instant case is also not maintainable since only a citizen of India can seek
information whereas in the instant case, the documents viz. the RTI application and the Complaint
before the CIC were signed simply by the Secretary of the NGO, Nyay Dhara. Thus the Applicant
is effectively Nyay Dhara which is not a natural person and hence not a citizen eligible to acquire
information under provisions of the RTI Act 2005 in sync with the constant position as held in all
the aforementioned cases where information has been denied on the ground that the information
has not been sought by a “citizen” as defined under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. Hence it is
observed by the Commission that in the instant case, the Applicant is not entitled to the information
in the capacity of a “citizen” as understood and defined under Section 3 of the RTI Act 2005.
5. The Complaint is thus dismissed on the above terms. However, the Applicant shall be at liberty to
make a de novo application, provided it is an application signed by an individual person in the
capacity of a citizen as defined under the RTI Act 2005. The PIO is hereby directed to take action
as per the Act, upon receipt of such application.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Parminder Singh
Secretary, Nyay Dhara [NGO],
J41, 1st Floor,
Bander wali Khui,
Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi – 110 015
2. CPIO,
Office of the State Transport Authority,
Sheikh Sarai,
New Delhi
3. Officer in charge, NIC