ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Wed, Jul 24, 2024
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Public Authority
Supreme Court(Public Authority)/ High Courts(Public Authority)
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
34 28 Mar, 2011 Shri Kuldeep Singh Khaira Vs. Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar.

The question before the Commission is whether the Nankana Sahib Education Trust, Ludhiana, is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
CIC held that, it is clear that information relating to any private body which can be accessed by Public authority(SGPC in this case) under any law can be termed as “information”.
35 02 Jun, 2009 Mr. B. R. Manhas Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund

The information pertaining to i) Year-wise Financial Grant received by the JNMF, Teen Murti House, New Delhi as well as the JNMF, Swaraj Bhawan, Allahabad, U.P. from the Ministry of Human Resource Development during the past 20 years; ii) Copies of yearly utilization certificates duly attested by Chartered Accountants of the Financial Grant received by the JNMF from the Ministry of Human Resource Development; iii) information regarding purpose of grant from the Ministry of HRD to JNMF; iv) list of Board of Trustees and other Members of the Executive Committee of the JNMF; v) information pertaining to the affiliation of the members of the Board of Trustees of JNMF to any of the political parties etc.

The Commission declares the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund a Public Authority under the Right to Information Act 2005. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Administrative Secretary, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Nehru is directed to appoint the Central Public Information Officer, Assistant Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority in the organization within 15 days of receipt of the instant order. The Commission further directs compliance of the other provisions of the RTI Act 2005, within 120 days of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the Respondent to furnish the information as sought by the Appellant within 15 working days and submit a copy of the same before the Commission indicating compliance of the orders of the Commission.
36 21 Nov, 2008 Dr. G.C. Sethi Vs. Directorate of Health Services

Complainant seeking information Dep’t of Nursing Homes, Directorate of Medical Health, CNCT Delhi, received and registered as ID No.303 on 12.11.2007. Through the RTI application, he wanted to know as to “what action had been taken on my complaint concerning unlawful medical practice by Dr. I.A. Ansari” of Ansari hospital Sagarpur, New Delhi. He also asked as to what action had been taken against the said hospital for violation of rules and other unlawful acts mentioned in the said complaint.
It is clear that no individual can be held to account for the delay in response. It is, however, regrettable that the public authority has no system in place whereby the CPIO is informed immediately a deposit is made on a specific case by the Cash Section in the same public authority, which should be automatic. We hereby direct the Director, Health Services, Government of NCT of Delhi us 19 (8) sub-section (a) to personally look into the matter and ensure that no undue delay is caused in transmitting information from the cash section to the PIO. The system should be so devised as to ensure that RTI applications are responded to within the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act.
Total Case uploaded: 36