Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001462
Dated November 18, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri S.S.Upadhyaya
Name of the Public Authority : ITDC
Background
1. The applicant filed an RTI application dt.25.6.09 with the CPIO, ITDC requesting for
following information:
i) Payment off telephone bills at residence/mobile bills and all other expenses such as
salary including all allowances of Shri Rajeev Makin, Mrs.Anita Bimal, Shri S.Saxena and
Shri Anchit Raj.
ii) Total bills paid to Ashoka Florist from Hyderabad House from Jan.2004 to May 2009
and the copy of the procedure adopted for purchasing the flower.
iii) Photocopy of the P.F.challan along with salary bill of the employee working in
Hyderabad House through M/s.Keepers Services contractor house keeping.
Shri Anita Bimal, Executive Manager replied on 22.7.09 as follows:
i) The requisite information sought is exempted from disclosure in terms of the
provision of the section 8(1)(j) as it is personal in nature.
ii) The information asked is third party information. The concerned party was asked
to make submissions as to whether the information should be provided or not. The party
has intimated not to disclose their information. Moreover, the information asked for is of
commercial confidence and trade secret covered u/s 8(1)(d).
iii) The information sought is not specific, hence unable to provide the same.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.24.8.09 with the Appellate
Authority reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority replied on
17.9.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant
filed a second appeal dt.22.10.09 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for
November 18, 2009.
3. Shri Rajiv Makin, Appellate Authority and Shri Karunesh Tandon, Advocate representing the
CPIO, represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that the appeal is not maintainable since only a citizen of India
can seek information whereas in the instant case, it was the contention of the Respondent
Public Authority that the Appellant sought information on behalf of an association. In this
regard it is important to deal with the well settled law as per various decisions of the
Commission. 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 “…..appellant has
submitted the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in his
individual capacity, signing no doubt as President of his association, but not for a
separate entity……… 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…”. While deciding the
Appeal Nos.CIC/WB/A/2006/00590, 639, 677, 754 to 758 dated 16.05.07 titled Shri
Deepak Gupta vs. M. C. D. it was held as follows:
…….. all superior Courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their
extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under
Article 19 and very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the
applicants/ petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as
such, not “Citizens”. The Commission also has been receiving a number of such
applications from such entities. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, I think, the
Commission also should not throw them out on mere technical ground that the applicant
/appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen……..generally an office bearer
who submits an application on behalf of such a society is submitting the
application/ appeal on behalf of its members and normally it is for common
benefit of the members who are citizens.
The application/ appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu
Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituting as a body
or otherwise is to be accepted and allowed.
On another occasion while deciding the case of Shri J.C. Talukdar vs C.E. (E), CPWD,
Kolkata being Complaint Nos.CIC/WB/C/2007/00104 & 105 both dated 30.3.2007 it was
held that an application/ appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a
Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a
body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed.
Yet again while deciding the case of CIC/SG/A/2009/001926 dated 29.09.09 stated that
“….The fact that the name of the citizen could be clearly identified should have been
adequate for the information to have been supplied. The Commission warns the PIO not to
deny information on such grounds …”
6. The Respondent Public Authority has placed reliance on the decision in Case
No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 dated 03.03.2008 titled as The Secretary, The Cuttack Tax Bar
Association versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-VII “……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 per-se 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….”
While denying the information to the Appellants in another Appeal No.579/ICPB/2007 vide
order dated June 18, 2007 it was held that “…Even though this Commission had earlier
taken the view that only natural persons could be considered to be “citizens” in terms of
Section 3 of the RTI Act, yet, with the view to ensure that the beneficial provisions of the
Act should not be denied on technical grounds, presently this Commission has been
entertaining applications filed on behalf of companies, associations, firms etc provided
proper authorization of the Board of the company, management committees of Associations
or the resolution of partners are enclosed with the applications.” Another case being No.
CIC/AT/A/2008/01489 titled as M M Lal versus Customs Department was dismissed vide
decision dated 24th June 2009, on the ground that the RTI Application & 1st Appeal were
signed by different individuals on the contention that they represented the same Law Firm
thereby clearly reconfirming the provisions of law 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.
7. Detailed study of the aforementioned cases thus reveal that the opinion is divided on
whether an association of persons is to be considered as “citizen” as understood and
defined under the RTI Act 2005 or not. However the one constant position in all the cases
where information has been denied on the ground that the information has not been sought
by a citizen as defined under the RTI Act 2005, is that the signatories have been different
individuals at different levels of the same case. Also in some cases, the name of the
signatory has not even been clearly specified. In such cases the inference is obvious that
the signatory is a mere representative of the Firm/Association and not seeking information
in his/her individual capacity. The position is completely the opposite in the instant case,
where the Appellant is the same individual who has duly signed the RTI application as also
the Appeals and pursued the case in his individual capacity at all levels. This is a similar
position as seen in the aforementioned case of Shri Deepak Gupta vs. M. C. D. being
Appeal Nos.CIC/WB/A/2006/00590, 639, 677, 754 to 758. Hence it is observed by the
Commission that in the instant case, the information is being sought by an individual and in
the light of the aforementioned decisions of the Commission, the information cannot be
denied on such a frivolous ground as contended by the Respondent Public Authority. Hence
the Commission directs that information as sought by the Appellant may be furnished by
the 15th Dec 2009.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri S.S.Upadhyay
All India ITDC Trade Union Federation
166 Pratap Nagar
Opp. Mayur Vihar Phase-I
Pocket-IV
Delhi
2. The CPIO
India Tourism Development Corporation
(V.V.I.P)
Hyderabad House
1, Ashoka road
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
India Tourism Development Corporation
D(C&M) Office
6th Floor, SCOPE Complex
Core-8, Lodhi road
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC