Shri B. R. Manhas vs Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund on 15 September, 2008

                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                 Appeal No.CIC/OK/C/2007/00040
                            Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18


Appellant        -          Shri B. R. Manhas
Respondent           -      Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund


Facts

:

By an application of 27.11.06 Shri B. R. Manhas of Lado Sarai, New Delhi
applied to the Chairperson, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund seeking the
following information:

“(A) The year wise Financial Grant given by the Ministry of
Human Resources Development (HRD), Government of
India to Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Teen Murti
House, New Delhi-110001 for the last twenty years.

(B) The year wise Financial Grant given by the Ministry of
Human Resources Development, Government of India to
Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Swaraj Bhawan,
Allahabad, UP for the last twenty years.

(C) Kindly supply the copies of the yearly Utilization Certificates
duly attested by the Chartered Accountant, of the Financial
Grant submitted by Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund to the
HRD Ministry.

(D) Kindly supply the information with regard to the purpose for
which the Financial Grant is given by the HRD Ministry of
Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund.

(E) Kindly supply the List of Board of Trustees and members of
the Executive Committee of the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial
Fund, Teen Murti House, New Delhi-110001.

(F) Kindly supply the information regarding the affiliation of the
members of the Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru
Memorial Fund to different Political Parties such as:

         a.            Indian National Congress (I).
         b.            Bharatiya Janta Party.
         c.            Communist Party of India (Marxist).
         d.            Rashtriya Janta Dal."



                                                1

However, on not receiving a response, Shri Manhas moved a complaint before
this Commission on 25.1.07 with the following prayer:

“A) That the Chairperson Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund’
Teen Murti House, New Delhi be directed to supply the
requested information without further delay.

B) That appropriate penalty is imposed on the person for
the period of delay beyond the time provided in the Act
for providing information.”

Upon this the Commission, in its order of 16.10.07, decided as follows:

“The Commission has decided to treat this petition as a complaint
under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, and hereby directs the
Public Information Officer, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, New
Delhi, to provide the information sought by the complainant within
15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision.

Since the PIO has failed to supply the information in time, he is
directed to appear this Commission on 23rd November 2007 at
12.30 p.m. in person along with other officials whose assistance
has been sought for replying to the RTI application to explain why
action should not be initiated under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.”

Subsequently, however, Information Commissioner, Dr. O.P. Kejariwal
received a letter from Shri Suman Dubey, Secretary Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial
Fund stating as follows:

“We have been advised by the Chief Information Commissioner
that the RTI Act does not apply for the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial
Fund. I attach a copy of the letter received by us.”

The letter referred to dated 7.8.07 addressed to Dr. Karan Singh Vice
Chairman, JLMF was as follows:

“Thank you for your letter of 21st June 2007. I attach a report of our
legal adviser Prof. K. K. Nigam, which concludes as follows:

“I am of opinion that so far as the Jawahar Lal Memorial
Fund is concerned does not come within the ambit of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, and citizen of India, as of
right, cannot seek information from the Trust about matters
u/s 6 of the Act.”

2

Thereafter, in a letter of 21.11.07 addressed to complainant Shri B. R.

Manhas by the Registry of this Commission, he was informed as follows:

“The matter has been examined and noted that the Jawaharlal
Memorial Fund does not come within the ambit of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and a citizen of India cannot seek information
from the Trust about trust matters under section 6 of the RTI Act.”

In the meanwhile, in response to the orders of this Commission appellant
was given some information by the Ministry of Human Resource Development
regarding utilization of funds. As the Ministry of HRD was being looked after by
Information Commissioner Dr Kejariwal the case came before him. The
appellant is his review petition pointed out the following facts: –

(i) According to an office memorandum of the Ministry of
Culture, the Department of Higher Education had granted
various sums in various years to the Organization including
their Allah bad Branch;

(ii) the JNLF had received a one-time grant of Rs. 7 crores in
the year 1993 for the creation of a corpus for award of
fellowships; and

(iii) The Trust is housed within the premises of the Teen Murti
House, which is Government property.

According to the appellant, taking into consideration these factors,
the JNLF can by no means be declared as outside the ambit of the
RTI Act. This Bench feels that there is some substance in what the
appellant has said. It, therefore, recommends a Full Bench hearing
of the case.”

In this context, in a letter of 21.11.07, on a separate application of
Shri B.R. Manhas, Shri Akhil Saxena, Under Secretary (Museums), Ministry of
Culture had written to him as follows:

“I am directed to refer to Director, Department of Higher
Education’s letter No. H. 11019/42/2007-CDN dated 12th and 19th
November, 2007 on the above subject and to state that a sum of
Rs. 10.40 lakhs had been sanctioned by the Ministry of Culture vide
letter of even number dated 11th February, 2006 during the year

3
2005-2006 of the Anand Bhawan Museum, Allahabad, under the
scheme of strengthening of Regional and Local Museums.”

Accordingly, a Division Bench comprised of the following was constituted
and the review petition of complaint scheduled for hearing. In response to the
hearing notice, Shri P. Chakraborty, Deputy Administrative Secretary JNML
submitted as follows:

“In this connection, I would draw your kind attention to your earlier
letter of even No. dated 21st November 2007 addressed to the
same person, Shri B. R. Manhas, and copy to us wherein you have
mentioned that “…the Jawaharlal Memorial Fund does not come
within the ambit of the Right to Information act, 2005, and a citizen
of India cannot seeking information from the Trust about trust
matters under section 6 of the RTI Act.

“In view of above the case is treated as closed in the Commission.”

We enclose for your information a copy of the letter from the Chief
Information Commissioner intimating that the JNM Fund does not
come within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”

The review petition was heard on 15.9.2008 with a view to examine
whether there had been an error of facts or in law in the decisions taken in this
Commission on the subject. The following are present:

Respondents
CPIO/PIO- Sh. Lalit Bhasin, Trustee
Sh. Ranjan Kumar
F.A.A. Shri O. Chakraborty, Dy. Admn. Secy.

Shri D. K. Bawa, Asstt. A.O.

Complainant
Shri B.R. Manhas
Shri A. K. Verma

Complainant submitted a copy of a petition dated 27.8.08 in which he has
stated as follows:

“That the appellant was dismayed and was extremely pained to
note that the DB of the Hon’ble Commission which is scheduled to
hear the Appellant’ Revision Petition on 15.9.2008 includes Hon’ble
Chief Information Commissioner Shri Wajahat Habibullah, as in

4
judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority which decides
a case cannot sit in appeal against its own decision.

That it is on record that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Chief
Information Commissioner, Shri Wajahat Habibullah, the
Respondent Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Teen Murti House,
New Delhi is not a Public Authority, against which decision, the
appellant had filed revision petition. That there is likelihood of there
being subject matter bias when the appeal comes for hearing.

That there are numerous judicial decisions in which the judicial
authorities have pronounced that not only in judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings, but also in administrative decisions, there should be
no chance of actual or apparent bias of any kind, leave alone.
Subject matter bias, which is considered the gravest of all species
of bias and that justice should not only be done, but should also
appear to have been done.”

He further submitted a petition of 15.9.08 stating as follows:

“That it seems, that the objections of the appellant/ complainant
have not been considered by the Hon’ble Commission and matter
is being heard by the same Bench, in derogation of the established
cannons of law, more particularly the universal principles of natural
justice.

In view of these facts and those enumerated in the petition dated
27.8.2008, the petitioner most reluctantly agrees to participate in
the proceedings and that too under protest and requests the
Hon’ble Commission to kindly place this on record of the file.”

It was explained to appellant that there was thus far no decision of this
Commission or of the Chief Information Commissioner on the question raised in
his appeal by complainant Shri Manhas, a copy of the letter in which the legal
advice obtained by us on the request of the Vice Chairman of the Jawahar Lal
Nehru Memorial Fund was read out to him. Shri Lalit Bhasin, Trustee, Jawahar
Lal Nehru Memorial Fund submitted that since petitioner Shri Manhas had
agreed to participate in the proceedings, the matter may now be heard.
However, complainant Shri Manhas insisted that to this he will only agree under
protest.

5

He also submitted that he has no confidence in the Information
Commissioner who gave the initial decision since he had revised his earlier
decision by his order on 21.11.07 and referred his petition to a Division Bench
which he should have treated as a review application and heard on his own.

DECISION NOTICE

As submitted by Shri Lalit Bhasin, Trustee, a review application can only be
considered by this Commission in the absence of a specific provision for review
in the RTI Act if an error in fact or in law is found. In this case the only ground for
review, therefore, is whether this Commission has erred either in the opinion
conveyed to Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Fund by the Central Information
Commissioner in his letter of 7.8.2007 or by Information Commissioner Dr. O. P.
Kejariwal in his order of 16.3.07. It was, therefore, felt necessary for both
Information Commissioners to sit as a Division Bench to hear the Review Petition
concerning both. However, in light of Shri Manna’s lack of confidence in this
Commission, the only recourse now open to him is in moving a Writ Petition
against the decision of 21.11.07 of this Commission before the High Court of
Delhi.

This Review Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Announced in the
hearing.

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

   (Dr. O. P. Kejariwal)                                 (Wajahat Habibullah)
Information Commissioner                          Chief Information Commissioner
       15.9.2008                                                      15.9.2008




                                          6

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.

(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
15.9.2008

7