Mr.R K Garg vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 24 June, 2011

                                  1


             Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama 
                     Place, New Delhi­110066
     Telefax:011­26180532 & 011­26107254 website­cic.gov.in

              Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000578 

 Appellant /Complainant       :       Sh. R.K. Garg, 
Chandigarh      
Public Authority              :        Chandigarh Police 
Welfare Fund Bank,
                              Chandigarh ( Sh. S.K. Goyal, 
SectionOfficer
                              & Sh. Sucha Singh, Assistant)

Date of Hearing               :       24 June 2011  
Date of Decision              :       24 June 2011

Facts

:­ 

1. Vide   RTI   application   dated   25.7.2009   presented 
before the CPIO, Chandigarh Police Welfare Fund, the 
appellant Sh. R.K. Garg sought information pertaining 
to   the   welfare   schemes   for   police   personnel   and 
utilization   of   the   fund   monies   through   10   points   – 
enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘A’.

2. CPIO   denied   disclosure   of   information   on   the 
grounds   that   the   Police   Welfare   Fund   was   a   private 
fund   and   not   under   the   control   of   any   Public 
Authority   and,   therefore,   was   not   accessible   to   the 
Public   Authority   as   per     the   provisions   of   Section 
2(j) of the Act.

3. In   his   appeal   dated   23.9.2009   submitted   before 
the   First   Appellate   Authority,   the   appellant   argued 
that the Police Welfare Fund have received money from 
the  Government  and,  therefore,  information   should  be 
provided.

Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000578  
2

4. The   First   Appellate   Authority   after   giving 
opportunity   of   hearing   to   the   appellant   issued   a 
speaking   order   on   8.10.2009,   in   which   he   reiterated 
that the Police Welfare Fund was not a beneficiary of 
any grant from the Government and was purely private 
fund and dismissed the appeal. 

5. Appellant   preferred   second   appeal   before   the 
Commission.     Matter   was   heard   today.     Appellant   did 
not   appear.   Respondent   was   present   as   above   and 
reiterated the position stated in the above orders.

Decision Notice

6. After  hearing  the submissions  of the  respondent 
and   after   perusing   the   facts   on   record,   Commission 
up­holds   the   order   of   the   CPIO   and   the   First 
Appellate Authority.  Appeal is dismissed.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
 

Copy to:­

 1. Shri R.K. Garg
House No. 3328, Sector­27­D, 
Chandigarh­160109

2. The CPIO
Secretary
Chandigarh Police Welfare Fund  Bank
Deposit Society (Regd.)
Police Headquarters (U.T.)
Sector­9, Chandigarh. 

Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000578  
3

3. The Appellate Authority
DIG Police
Chandigarh Police Welfare Fund  Bank
Deposit Society (Regd.)
Police Headquarters (U.T.)
Sector­9, Chandigarh. 

Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000578