welcome to Public Authority | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/SH/A/2015/001725 (234.10 KB)	25 Nov, 2016	Dayanand Manjunath Naik Bengre vs Bharat Oman Refineries limited, Bina Section 2(h) Public Authority Whether M/S. Bharat Oman Refinery Limited is a public authority under the RTI Act? The Commission held that funding of equity of BORL by BPCL to the extent of 500/0 cannot be regarded as funding by the 'appropriate government'. As regards the aspect of 'substantial control', since funding of equity by BPCL cannot be regarded as funding by the appropriate government, presence of their Chairman and three Directors on the Board of BORL can also not be regarded as substantial control of 'appropriate government'. Presence of two Directors of the Government of Madhya Pradesh can also not be regarded as substantial control of the Madhya Pradesh Government as such M/S. Bharat Oman Refineries Limited is not a public authority as defined u/ s 2(h) of the RTI Act.
17	CIC/RM/A/2014/900973 (132.55 KB)	05 Aug, 2016	Anagha A. Kolhe Vs. M/o Defence, New Delhi Section 2(h) public authority the Commission held that in matter of Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) Vs. Adjutant General’s Branch & Ors. (LPA No. 867/2013 decided on November 19, 2014 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while reiterating its earlier stand pertaining to AFNHB held that AWHO is not a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
18	CIC/DS/C/2013/000633 (312.56 KB)	15 Jul, 2016	Mukesh Jain Vs. Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi & Ors. Section 2(h) — Public Authority The respondent, stated that the Council does not fall within the definition of the 'Public Authority' and is not amendable to release information under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as per the decision in Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00127 dated 21.072006 passed by the Hon'ble Shri O.P. Kejriwal, Information Commissioner holding that prima facie the CISCE is not covered by the definition of 'public authority' since it is neither funded nor controlled by the Government or any other public body. The respondent said that the complainant has suppressed this fact from the Commission — the Commission held that the Appellate Authority and CPIOs had taken reasoned positions under the RTI Act in their best judgement. Merely because it was not in consonance with the thinking of the appellant, these decisions did not become malafide and even less so, mindless. No intervention is required.
19	CIC/YA/A/2015/000847 (301.27 KB)	01 Jul, 2016	Hemant Dhage Vs. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Delhi Section 2(h) Public Authority Office of the Minister the Commission held that the office of the Minister falls within the precincts of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act containing all the relevant components as laid down in the Section 2(h) of the Act. Therefore, the mandate of the Section 5 of the RTI Act applies in the case of the office of the Minister which requires all public authorities to designate PIO to provide information to persons requesting for information under the Act. Such PIOS, under Section 5(2) of the Act are to receive applications for information and under Section 5(3) of the Act are to deal with request from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the information seekers. The office of the Minister is expected to serve the interests of the citizens and also inform the people when they could meet the Minister. The Commission directed the office of the Minister, to designate a CPIO or nodal officer to handle the RTI matters in exercise of the Section 5 of the RTI Act within two weeks of receipt of this order.
20	CIC/KY/C/2014/000285-YA CIC/KY/C/2014/000286-YA (131.13 KB)	06 Jun, 2016	R.K.Jain Vs. Habitat Services Centre, New Delhi Section 2(h) — Public Authority Whether Habitat Service Centre (HSC) is a public authority for the purposes of RTI Act or not? — the Commission held that HSC is neither financed nor controlled by HUDCO. Applying the law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent does not fall within the purview of "Public Authority" for the purpose of RTI Act. It may' be also borne in mind that the irresistible temptation to declare private bodies as public authorities should not jeopardise the privacy and autonomy of such bodies hampering their competitiveness.
21	CIC/RM/A/2014/900388/SD (139.93 KB)	02 Jun, 2016	Dinesh Kumar Kaushik vs Ministry of Defence (Nay), New Delhi Section 2(h) Public Authority Whether Veteran Sailor Forum (VSE) is the public authority under the RTI Act? The Commission held that to qualify as public authority, an entity should either be substantially financed by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or should be controlled by either of these two Governments. Veteran Sailors Forum (VSF) does not satisfy this test and, therefore, VSF cannot be said to be a public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO.
22	CIC/LS/A/2013/001656/SS (409.76 KB)	26 Apr, 2016	K C. Unnikrishngn vs Bhagyanagar Gas Limited Section 2(h) Public Authority Whether M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. is the public authority under the RTI Act or not? The Full Bench of the CIC held that in order to hold that an entity has been indirectly financed by an appropriate Government, first of all, it is necessary to find that the Central Government has parted with some funds for financing the authority/body; and secondly, the said funds have found their way to the authority/body in question. The link between the financing received by an entity and an appropriate Government must be clearly established. From the information obtained from the websites of GAIL India Ltd. and HPCL, it is seen that the shareholding of Government of India in these entities is 56.11% and 51.11 0/0 respectively. These entities also generate income from their commercial activities, therefore, shareholding of approximately 98% by these organizations in M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. does not qualify as substantial financing by the appropriate Government within the scope of section 2 (h) (d) (i) of the RTI Act. Further, even though four of the five directors of M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. are from GAIL India Ltd. and HPCL, because of what is stated above regarding the shareholding of GAIL India Ltd. and HPCL, their presence on the Board of Directors cannot be regarded as substantial control by the appropriate Government, hence, M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. is not a public authority under the RTI Act.
23	CIC/MP/A/2015/000063/SH (311.66 KB)	29 Mar, 2016	V.R.K Palaniappan vs The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Karur Section 2(h) Public Authority The Commission held that the Appellant did not make any submissions that would show, even prima facie, that the Respondent Bank is a public authority under the RTI Act as such there is no substance in this appeal and it is dismissed.
24	CIC/MP/A/2014/000543 (130.27 KB)	30 Jan, 2015	Ashok Kumar T. Dubney Vs. Credit Information Bureau (I) Ltd (CIBIL) The question was whether CIBIL is a Public Authority for the purposes of the RTI Act or not. The CIC held that CIBIL is not a Public Authority as the entity is not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the Government.
25	CIC/SA/C/2014/000273 (373.91 KB)	12 Jan, 2015	M. K. Gandhi Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi The appellant sought certified copies of service contract between the hospital and staff, death certificate of his son, detailed chart of diet; complete CD of Hyperbaric Oxygen, CD of CCTV recording for a certain period, certificate of cause of death, etc. The CIC directed the respondent to furnish point-wise information sought by the applicant within 2 weeks.
26	CIC/SM/C/2011/001386 and 000838 (97.25 KB)	03 Jun, 2013	Subhash Chandra Aggarwal & Anr vs. Indian National Congress & others Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Whether the political parties are covered under section 2(h) of the RTI Act? –The criticality of the role these Political Parties in our democratic set up and the nature of duties. The order of the Single Bench of this Commission is set aside and it is held that AICC/INC, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
27	CIC/DS/C/2011/001345 (420.24 KB)	08 Oct, 2012	Brig.(Retd.) Sukhdev Singh vs Chandigarh Golf Club, Chandigarh Whether the Chandigarh Golf Club is the public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the Chandigarh Golf Club is a public authority u/s 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. Section 2(h)
28	CIC/SM/A/2012/000028, 000868 & 001523 (212.83 KB)	05 Oct, 2012	Dr. Prashan Ramesh Chakkarwar, Shri Ajit Kumar & Shri Ashish Gupta vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission Retention period of Records – UPSC - the CIC observed that the public authority must follow a uniform policy in regard to both the retention and disclosure of records.
29	CIC/LS/A/2011/002868/BS/0700 (43.55 KB)	29 Aug, 2012	Mr. Chetan Kothari vs PIO MTNL Mumbai CIC has given direction to the public authority to provide training to the CPIO and staff of the organization.
30	CIC/LS/A/2012/000921 (34.71 KB)	14 Aug, 2012	Dr. V. P. Singh vs Bengal Engineering Croup & Centre, Roorkee It has been the consistent view of the Commission that Army Schools are not public authority u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Section 2 (h)

16

CIC/SH/A/2015/001725
(234.10 KB) pdf icon

25 Nov, 2016

Dayanand Manjunath Naik Bengre vs Bharat Oman Refineries limited, Bina

Section 2(h) Public Authority

Whether M/S. Bharat Oman Refinery Limited is a public authority under the RTI Act? The Commission held that funding of equity of BORL by BPCL to the extent of 500/0 cannot be regarded as funding by the 'appropriate government'. As regards the aspect of 'substantial control', since funding of equity by BPCL cannot be regarded as funding by the appropriate government, presence of their Chairman and three Directors on the Board of BORL can also not be regarded as substantial control of 'appropriate government'. Presence of two Directors of the Government of Madhya Pradesh can also not be regarded as substantial control of the Madhya Pradesh Government as such M/S. Bharat Oman Refineries Limited is not a public authority as defined u/ s 2(h) of the RTI Act.

17

CIC/RM/A/2014/900973
(132.55 KB) pdf icon

05 Aug, 2016

Anagha A. Kolhe Vs. M/o Defence, New Delhi

Section 2(h) public authority the Commission held that in matter of Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) Vs. Adjutant General’s Branch & Ors. (LPA No. 867/2013 decided on November 19, 2014 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while reiterating its earlier stand pertaining to AFNHB held that AWHO is not a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

18

CIC/DS/C/2013/000633
(312.56 KB) pdf icon

15 Jul, 2016

Mukesh Jain Vs. Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi & Ors.

Section 2(h) — Public Authority

The respondent, stated that the Council does not fall within the definition of the 'Public Authority' and is not amendable to release information under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as per the decision in Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00127 dated 21.072006 passed by the Hon'ble Shri O.P. Kejriwal, Information Commissioner holding that prima facie the CISCE is not covered by the definition of 'public authority' since it is neither funded nor controlled by the Government or any other public body. The respondent said that the complainant has suppressed this fact from the Commission — the Commission held that the Appellate Authority and CPIOs had taken reasoned positions under the RTI Act in their best judgement. Merely because it was not in consonance with the thinking of the appellant, these decisions did not become malafide and even less so, mindless. No intervention is required.

19

CIC/YA/A/2015/000847
(301.27 KB) pdf icon

01 Jul, 2016

Hemant Dhage Vs. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Delhi

Section 2(h) Public Authority

Office of the Minister the Commission held that the office of the Minister falls within the precincts of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act containing all the relevant components as laid down in the Section 2(h) of the Act. Therefore, the mandate of the Section 5 of the RTI Act applies in the case of the office of the Minister which requires all public authorities to designate PIO to provide information to persons requesting for information under the Act. Such PIOS, under Section 5(2) of the Act are to receive applications for information and under Section 5(3) of the Act are to deal with request from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the information seekers. The office of the Minister is expected to serve the interests of the citizens and also inform the people when they could meet the Minister. The Commission directed the office of the Minister, to designate a CPIO or nodal officer to handle the RTI matters in exercise of the Section 5 of the RTI Act within two weeks of receipt of this order.

20

CIC/KY/C/2014/000285-YA CIC/KY/C/2014/000286-YA
(131.13 KB) pdf icon

06 Jun, 2016

R.K.Jain Vs. Habitat Services Centre, New Delhi

Section 2(h) — Public Authority

Whether Habitat Service Centre (HSC) is a public authority for the purposes of RTI Act or not? — the Commission held that HSC is neither financed nor controlled by HUDCO. Applying the law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent does not fall within the purview of "Public Authority" for the purpose of RTI Act. It may' be also borne in mind that the irresistible temptation to declare private bodies as public authorities should not jeopardise the privacy and autonomy of such bodies hampering their competitiveness.

21

CIC/RM/A/2014/900388/SD
(139.93 KB) pdf icon

02 Jun, 2016

Dinesh Kumar Kaushik vs Ministry of Defence (Nay), New Delhi

Section 2(h) Public Authority

Whether Veteran Sailor Forum (VSE) is the public authority under the RTI Act? The Commission held that to qualify as public authority, an entity should either be substantially financed by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, or should be controlled by either of these two Governments. Veteran Sailors Forum (VSF) does not satisfy this test and, therefore, VSF cannot be said to be a public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO.

22

CIC/LS/A/2013/001656/SS
(409.76 KB) pdf icon

26 Apr, 2016

K C. Unnikrishngn vs Bhagyanagar Gas Limited

Section 2(h) Public Authority

Whether M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. is the public authority under the RTI Act or not? The Full Bench of the CIC held that in order to hold that an entity has been indirectly financed by an appropriate Government, first of all, it is necessary to find that the Central Government has parted with some funds for financing the authority/body; and secondly, the said funds have found their way to the authority/body in question. The link between the financing received by an entity and an appropriate Government must be clearly established. From the information obtained from the websites of GAIL India Ltd. and HPCL, it is seen that the shareholding of Government of India in these entities is 56.11% and 51.11 0/0 respectively. These entities also generate income from their commercial activities, therefore, shareholding of approximately 98% by these organizations in M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. does not qualify as substantial financing by the appropriate Government within the scope of section 2 (h) (d) (i) of the RTI Act. Further, even though four of the five directors of M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. are from GAIL India Ltd. and HPCL, because of what is stated above regarding the shareholding of GAIL India Ltd. and HPCL, their presence on the Board of Directors cannot be regarded as substantial control by the appropriate Government, hence, M/S Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. is not a public authority under the RTI Act.

23

CIC/MP/A/2015/000063/SH
(311.66 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2016

V.R.K Palaniappan vs The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Karur

Section 2(h) Public Authority

The Commission held that the Appellant did not make any submissions that would show, even prima facie, that the Respondent Bank is a public authority under the RTI Act as such there is no substance in this appeal and it is dismissed.

24

CIC/MP/A/2014/000543
(130.27 KB) pdf icon

30 Jan, 2015

Ashok Kumar T. Dubney Vs. Credit Information Bureau (I) Ltd (CIBIL)

The question was whether CIBIL is a Public Authority for the purposes of the RTI Act or not.

The CIC held that CIBIL is not a Public Authority as the entity is not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the Government.

25

CIC/SA/C/2014/000273
(373.91 KB) pdf icon

12 Jan, 2015

M. K. Gandhi Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi

The appellant sought certified copies of service contract between the hospital and staff, death certificate of his son, detailed chart of diet; complete CD of Hyperbaric Oxygen, CD of CCTV recording for a certain period, certificate of cause of death, etc.

The CIC directed the respondent to furnish point-wise information sought by the applicant within 2 weeks.

26

CIC/SM/C/2011/001386 and 000838
(97.25 KB) pdf icon

03 Jun, 2013

Subhash Chandra Aggarwal & Anr vs. Indian National Congress & others

Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Whether the political parties are covered under section 2(h) of the RTI Act? –The criticality of the role these Political Parties in our democratic set up and the nature of duties. The order of the Single Bench of this Commission is set aside and it is held that AICC/INC, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

27

CIC/DS/C/2011/001345
(420.24 KB) pdf icon

08 Oct, 2012

Brig.(Retd.) Sukhdev Singh vs Chandigarh Golf Club, Chandigarh

Whether the Chandigarh Golf Club is the public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the Chandigarh Golf Club is a public authority u/s 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. Section 2(h)

28

CIC/SM/A/2012/000028, 000868 & 001523
(212.83 KB) pdf icon

05 Oct, 2012

Dr. Prashan Ramesh Chakkarwar, Shri Ajit Kumar & Shri Ashish Gupta vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission

Retention period of Records – UPSC - the CIC observed that the public authority must follow a uniform policy in regard to both the retention and disclosure of records.

29

CIC/LS/A/2011/002868/BS/0700
(43.55 KB) pdf icon

29 Aug, 2012

Mr. Chetan Kothari vs PIO MTNL Mumbai

CIC has given direction to the public authority to provide training to the CPIO and staff of the organization.

30

CIC/LS/A/2012/000921
(34.71 KB) pdf icon

14 Aug, 2012

Dr. V. P. Singh vs Bengal Engineering Croup & Centre, Roorkee

It has been the consistent view of the Commission that Army Schools are not public authority u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Section 2 (h)