Information about Mastergain 92 was denied by UTI Asset Management Company claiming that the issue was subjudice with Bombay HC - Complainant abstained - CIC: Complaint dismissed due to inability to establish that the respondent was a public authority
23 Mar, 2017O R D E R
FACTS:
The complainant, vide his RTI application sought information regarding disposal of his application dated 16.05.1992 for purchase of limits of Mastergain 92 and non-issuance of certificate or refund of amount, etc.
The Vice President, Department of Compliance vide its letter dated 27.08.2014, stated that the RTI Act, 2005 was not applicable to them. The complainant was informed that Bombay High Court had granted stay on the order passed by the Commission dated 06.08.2008 pursuant to a writ petition filed by the concerned entities. It was further submitted that on verification of records, M/s Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd.- Registrar of UTI MF Schemes was unable to find any investment in the name of the complainant under UTI Mastergain 92 (renamed as UTI Equity Fund). Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the complainant approached the State Information Commission of Punjab which in turn vide its letter dated 17.09.2014 advised the complainant to approach the Central Information Commission (CIC). Subsequently, the complainant approached the Central Information Commission.
HEARING
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present: C
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Absent;
Both the parties remained absent despite prior intimation. On the issue of defining ‘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; “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; of RTI Act, 2005, the Commission perused the specific provision under the Act which is reproduced below:
Section2 (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 organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
The Commission also observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank v. State of Kerala and others (Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013) had held as under:
“40. The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission as the case may be, when the question comes up for consideration.”
The complainant was not present to dispose off his burden of proving that the respondent organisation was 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; “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; of the RTI Act, 2005. It was noted that the respondent had already explained their position regarding non-applicability of the RTI Act, 2005 on the respondent organization and that the matter was subjudice with Bombay High Court.
DECISION:
In view of the absence of the complainant and his inability to establish or justify that the respondent organization was a public authority, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The complaint stands dismissed.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Balraj Kumar Rajpoot v. UTI Asset Management Company Ltd. In Complaint No.:-CIC/MP/C/2014/000344/BJ Date of Decision : 03.03.2017