Complainant: The Church of South India Trust Association should be declared a public authority as it is substantially financed by four State Governments & receives a large foreign donation controlled by the Enforcement Directorate - CIC: Appeal rejected
4 Feb, 2017Complainant pleaded that The Church of South India Trust Association should be declared a public authority as it is substantially financed by the four Southern State Governments & receives a large donation from the foreign countries which is controlled by the Enforcement Directorate - CIC: complainant has miserably failed to prove that Association is being funded by the appropriate Government directly or indirectly; appeal rejected
ORDER
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 22.10.2012, the Complainant sought information on the issues.
II.CPIO, response is not on record.
III. The First Appeal (FA) is not on record.
IV.First Appellate Authority (FAA), Order is not on record.
V. Grounds for the Complaint filed on 23.12.2013, are contained in the Memorandum of Complaint.
HEARING
Shri T. R. K. Kumarasingh, Learned Advocate as well as Shri R. Anand Padmansbhan, Learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of complainant and respondents, before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION
1. At the outset, it is stated here by complainant, vide his complaint dated 23.12.2013, that the respondent’s Company is substantially financed by the four Southern State Governments. Moreover, the respondents Company has also been receiving a large donation from the foreign countries which is controlled by the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore it is requested by him that respondent’s company be declared a Public Authority under Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; (d)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005. It is also worth to mention here that no penal action has been prayed for by the complainant while filling the complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 except the prayer as mentioned above.
2. For the sake of clarity, it would be appropriate to quote the exact wordings of Section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; (d)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005, which reads as under:
“public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any Non Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
3. During hearing of the case, a lengthy arguments were made by both parties. However, despite of lengthy arguments made by Shri T. R. K. Kumarasingh, Learned Advocate, on behalf of appellant, he failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the respondents are substantially funded or simply funded either by the State Government or by Central Government to declare them as a Public Authority u/s 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; (d)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005. On this, Shri T. R. K. Kumarasingh simply refers the Page no. 93, Para no. 1.3 of a notes forming part of Financial statements circulated by The Church of South India Trust Association, which reads as under:
“Since the Financial Statements are being prepared incorporating all units and sub units accounts for first time and owing to the vast geographical presence of the company, the management is in the process of collection financial records in the form of returns from all the subunits which is not complete as on 31st March 2013.”
4. In view of the wording as embedded above, it is not clear as to whether the particular trust (under which the association has been functioning) is being substantially financed or even simply financed by the appropriate Government (i.e. either State Government or Central Government), as defined under section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; (d)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005 or not.
5. Not only this, Shri T. R. K. Kumarasingh also referred Para no. 39 of the judgment dated 07.10.2013 announced by Hon. Supreme Court of India in case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala. As per the contents of this judgment, “the organization can be substantially financed either directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. Government may not have any statuary control over the NGOs, as such”. On this very aspect, a query was posed by the Commission, to Shri T. R. K. Kumarasingh, Advocate, to produce any documentary evidence by which it can be inferred that The Church of South India Trust Association, run by trust, is being substantially financed by the appropriate Government (i.e.. either by State Government or by Central Government), as per the requirements of section 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; (d) (ii) of the RTI Act 2005. On this aspect also, Learned Advocate failed to produce any documentary evidence and kept on arguing the case on irrelevant issues, which was strongly rebutted by Shri R. Anand Padmansbhan, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of respondents.
6. The Commission heard the submissions made by Shri T. R. K. Kumarasingh as well as Shri R. Anand Padmansbhan, at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the complainant in his RTI application dated 22.10.2012, respondent’s written submissions dated 18.05.2015, other material made available on records and also the contents of complaint.
7. In view of the legal position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commission feels that Shri T. R. K. Kumarasingh, Learned Advocate, miserably failed to prove that The Church of South India Trust Association was/is being funded by the appropriate Government directly or indirectly. Thus, the Commission observes that it would be appropriate and even justified to close the complainant’s captioned complaint forthwith. Therefore, it is hereby closed. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri R Jayakaran Isaac S/o. Late I B Rajendran v. The Church of South India Trust Association in File No. CIC/KY/C/2014/000050