Lt. Col. Avtar Singh Berar (Retd) vs Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management … on 10 July, 2008

                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00238 dated 4.6.2007
                            Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18


Appellant       -          Lt. Col. Avtar Singh Berar (Retd)
Respondent          -      Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee


Facts

:

By application of 22.4.07 Lt. Col. Avtar Singh Berar of Har Gobind Enclave, Delhi
applied to the President, Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee seeking
the following information :

“a) the source of access to information envisaged under section
4 of RTI Act (website address, etc.)

b) name and address of the Public Information Officer,
designated under section 5 of RTI Act.

c) name and address of the Appellate authority under section
19 of RTI Act.”

On not receiving a response Lt. Col. Berar has moved a complaint directly
before us with the following prayer :

“3. I made frantic enquiries over a long period from the office of
the DSGMC about the source of access to information
envisages under section 4 (website address, etc.), name and
address of the CPIOs designated under sec. 5 and name
and address of the appellate authority under sec. 19 of RTI.
I remained clueless since no one could provide me the
relevant information as there was none. In disgust, I wrote a
letter dated 7.4.2007 (Annexure) sent per speed post mail on
23.4.2007 and another copy hand delivered under
acknowledgment vide their diary number 909/2006 dated
25.4.2007 to the President, DSGMC asking for the above
information. I am sorry to submit that I have not received
any response as yet from the office of DSGMC.

4. In view of the above, I submit this complaint in terms of
section 18 (1) (a) since I have not been above to submit my
request to a CPIO of DSGMC for the reason that no such
officer has been appointed by DSGMC. I request for an

1
inquiry by the Commission in terms of the above provisions
of the Act.’

Accordingly, a hearing notice was sent to CPIO and President, Delhi Sikh
Gurudwara Management Committee on 14.1.08, but no response was received.

The appeal was heard on 10.7.2008. The following are present:

Appellant
Mr. Avtar Singh Berar

Respondents
Mr. Nirmal Singh Badhan, PIO (appeared after the appellant had
left and was heard subsequently)

Col. Berar invited our attention to the Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1971,
under sec. 3 of which Delhi Sikh Guruwara Management Committee has been
established as follows :

“3(1) With effect from such date as the Central Govt. may, by
notification in the official Gazette appoint, there shall be
established a Committee to be called the Delhi Sikh
Gurudwara Management Committee for the proper
management and control of the Gurudwara and Gurudwara
property.

(2) The Committee shall be a body corporate with the name
aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal
and shall by such name sue and be sued.

(3) The Committee shall have its head office in Delhi.”

Shri Nirmal Singh Badhan submitted that on learning that the Committee
falls under the definition of “public authority”, he has been designated as PIO
w.e.f. 1.7.2008 and appointment of another PIO and First Appellate Authority is
under process.

DECISION NOTICE

A public authority under the RTI Act 2005 is defined as follows:

2

Sec. 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; 1

(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 organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
Government;

From the above, it is clear that the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management
Committee established by law of Parliament, is a public authority. Because this
is accepted by the Committee we need not labour this point. However, this
Committee appears thus far not to have complied with its obligations under the
law. They are now directed to ensure that the necessary infrastructure mandated
u/s 5 of the RTI Act 2005 is established and made operational by full adherence
to sec. 4, particularly section 4(1)(b), the time limit for compliance of which has
already expired. This exercise will be completed within one moth of the
issue of this Decision Notice

The complaint is allowed. Announced in the hearing.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
10.7.2008
1
Underlined by us for emphasis

3
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.

(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
10.7.2008

4