ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Aug 22, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Public Authority
Supreme Court(Public Authority)/ High Courts(Public Authority)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
16 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.
17 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.
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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)
25 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.
26 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.
27 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)
28 CIC/AT/C/2010/000777/SS CIC/AT/C/2010/000778/SS
(215.56 kB) pdf icon
25 Jun, 2012 Balasahib S. Kurup Vs. Central Institute of Road Transport

Section 2(h) — Public Authority
Whether the Central Institute of Road Transport (CIRT) is a public authority under the RTI Act
The respondent from the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways submitted
that CIRT is a body created by the Association of State Road Transport Undertakings (ASTRU). ASRTU is a registered society under the Societies Act
and is not substantially funded by the Government. The Commission vide its
order dated 27.9.2010 in the matter of Shri K.K. Khattar Vs. Association of State Road Transport Undertakings (ASRTU) held that ASRTU is not a public authority and hence is not covered under the RTI Act. Since CIRT, Pune is a body ofASRTU, it can be treated in similar lines as that of ASRTU. Moreover, details of the financing as well as day to day functioning of CIRT, Pune are not controlled by the Ministry.
The Commission held that the CIRT does not qualify to be public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
29 CIC/SG/A/2011/003688/17641
(73.13 kB) pdf icon
12 Mar, 2012 Prakash Ranade Vs. CPIO & CGM, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Whether the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust is a public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act –
The Commission held that it is true that significant funding is provided to the Trust by the Respondent public authority. If the argument of the Respondent is accepted, it would necessarily imply a conflict of interest and be an improper slur on the integrity of the Bank officials. The presence of senior Bank officials especially the Executive Director who is a public servant on the board of trustees may check or ensure that decisions taken in the Trust are in consonance with its avowed objectives i.e. promoting the welfare of the Bank’s employees. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the Bank officers exercise a significant degree of control on the decision of the Trust. Based on the reasons described above, it appears that the trust is controlled and substantially financed by the appropriate Government. The Commission held that the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust is a public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
30 CIC/SM/C/2011/000404
(252.67 kB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2011 S S Bharath Bhushan, Hyderabad Vs. CIC.

CIC held that, Karur Vysya Bank is not covered under the definition of “Public Authority” as mentioned in Sec. 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Total Case uploaded: 33