Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4171/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000261
Dated, the 14th July, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Vijay Raj Singh
Name of the Public Authority: Indian Council for Child Welfare
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 9/7/09. The following were present:
Appellant: (1) Sh. Vijay Raj Singh
Respondent: (2) Mrs. Saroj Tripathi, ICCW
(3) Sh. T.V.S.R. Sreyas, Advocate
2. In response to an advertisement for filling up the post of Manager (Admn.),
the appellant applied for the post and he was asked to appear before the
Selection Committee of the respondent. The appellant was un-successful. In
this backdrop, the appellant has asked for the details of selection procedure,
including the criteria for appointment of staff. His RTI application dated August
13, 2008 was replied on September 3, 2008 by Sh. P.B. Majumder, OSD &
Information Officer, as under:
“You are informed that the ICCW is not presently covered under the RTI
Act”.
3. Being not satisfied with the respondent’s reply, the appellant submitted his
st
1 appeal, which was not replied.
4. In his 2nd appeal before the Commission, the appellant has stated that the
respondent has been receiving substantial grants-in-aid from the Government,
mainly the Ministry of Women and Child Development, HRD and others. The
respondent is, therefore, covered under the definition of public authority, as per
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
Section 2(h) of the Act. The respondent has, therefore, malafidely refused to
furnish the information.
5. During the hearing, the respondents made the following written and oral
submissions:
¾ The respondent is not a public authority as defined u/s 2(h) of the Act.
The Council is not an organization substantially financed by the Govt.
¾ The respondent has its own funding through the ICCW Trust, donations
and grants-in-aid from different agencies. And, there is no funding support
from the Government to run its administration.
¾ The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in its order dated 16.2.2009 in
W.P.No.2745 of 2008 filed by the Respondent Council, has left the issue
open as to whether Respondent Council is a ‘public authority’.
¾ “The Respondent Council acts like a voluntary partner for the Ministry of
Women and Child Development to carry out the programmes of child
development for the welfare of the children”.
¾ As per the respondent’s audited annual accounts 2007-08, a sum of
Rs.186 lakhs was provided as grants-in-aid by the Ministry of HRD,
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and Central Social Welfare
Board for meeting recurring and non-recurring expenses on account of
various Govt. programmes, which are implemented through the
respondent. This amount cannot be treated as substantial amount of
funding by the Government.
¾ The annual accounts for the above period also indicates that over Rs.10
lakhs was earned as interest on the Govt, grant put in savings bank
account.
¾ The Ministry of Women and Child Development has provided a total
amount of about Rs.50 crores in 2006-07, 07-08 and 08-09 for promotion
of Rajiv Gandhi National Creche Scheme for children of working mothers.
¾ The programme-wise break up of funds received from the different
Ministries for other schemes are not readily available.
Decision:
6. The respondent has admitted that the Council acts like a voluntary partner
for the Ministry of Women and Child Development to carryout the programmes of
child development for the welfare of the children. Clearly, almost all the
2
programmes related to the rights of the children are carried out by the
respondent, for which it receives funding support. For instance, for the
Government’s programme of Rajiv Gandhi National Creche Scheme for the
children of working mothers, the respondent received over Rs.50 crores in the
last three years, 2006 to 2008. Likewise, it has received funds for such
programmes as Integrated Child Development Scheme, Early Childhood
Education Programme, National Bravery Award Function, Street Children
Project, Balwadi cum Nutrition Programme, etc. The details of funds received
under each programme from various Government departments have not been
made available to the Commission. However, it is a fact that the respondent has
been carrying out activities, which are not only Governmental in nature but also
substantially financed by the Government. We, therefore, hold that the
respondent is a public authority u/s 2(h), (d) (ii) of the Act.
7. The Commission has moreover held vide its decision notice
No.CIC/OK/A/2007/1077 & 78 dated January 17,2008 that “the commission did
not see any reason for harbouring any doubt that they were a public authority”.
The High Court order, referred to above, has not set aside the order of this
Commission, which is also admitted by the respondent. In spite of the above
direction, the respondent has failed to comply with requirements of disclosure
norms as per the provisions of the Act. The respondent is, therefore, held
responsible for violation of the provisions of the Act as well as for creating
obstruction in free flow of information, as mandated under the Act.
8. Shri. P.B. Majumder, OSD and Information Officer, who has made a mis-
leading statement that ‘ICCW is not presently covered under the RTI Act’ is held
responsible for violation of 7(1) of the Act for refusing to furnish the information
within 30 days without any reasonable cause. He is directed to show cause as to
why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act for refusing to furnish the
information for malafied reasons. He should submit his explanation within 15
working days from the date of issue of this decision, failing which penalty would
be imposed. He may also appear for a personal hearing on 20th August 2009
at.12.30 p.m. The President, ICCW, is directed to ensure that a copy of this
decision is delivered to Shri. Mazumder, for his necessary compliance.
9. The respondent is responsible for deemed refusal of information resulting
in loss of resources, time and money, for seeking information and making
submissions to this Commission. The appellant has surely suffered all kinds of
losses for which he should be compensated u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act. The
President, ICCW, or her nominee, should explain as to why a suitable
compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) should not be
awarded to the appellant for the detriment suffered by him in seeking information
from the respondent as well as pursuing the matter with the Commission which
could have been avoided, had the respondent furnished the information. The
President or her nominee, should also be present for the hearing on 20th
3
August,2009 at.12.30 p.m. failing which the above mentioned amount of
compensation would be awarded to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act. The
appellant may also be present.
10. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Vijay Raj Singh, 269 Tilak Bazaar, Delhi – 110 006
2. Shri. P.B. Majumder, OSD & Information Officer, Indian Council for Child
Welfare, 4 Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.
3. Mrs. Saroj Tripathi, Indian Council for Child Welfare, 4 Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.
4. Smt. Gita Siddhartha, President, Indian Council of Child Welfare, 4 Deen
Dayal Upadhayay Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
4