Information regarding automated car parking at Delhi was sought under RTI
1 Dec, 2012Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit (DIMT) Ltd. seeking information related to automated car parking at various places in New Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO), DGMHR Government of NCT of Delhi stated that DIMTS Ltd. is not a Public Authority as per 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; of the RTI Act. He also returned the RTI Fee and the RTI application to the applicant.
Proceeding
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant stated that the website of DIMTS clearly mentions that it is a joint venture company with fifty percent equity share of the GNCTD and is substantially financed by funds provided by the appropriate government and as such is covered 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 RTI Act. The respondent submitted that in an earlier decision the CIC and the single bench of High Court of Delhi had declared DIMTS Ltd. as a public authority. However, the DIMTS Ltd. approached the High Court against the decision of the single Judge and the Division bench of the High Court of Delhi has stayed the decision of the single Judge, allowing disclosure of only that information to the respondent that did not pertain to DIMT. The respondent further added that as most of the information related to NDMC, the RTI application was forwarded by DIMTS Ltd. to the PIO NDMC for furnishing information against some points directly to the appellant. The applicant submitted that no response has been received by him from PIO, NDMC.
View of CIC
The Commission directed the PIO, New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to furnish the information available with to the applicant. The CIC also held that regarding the disclosure of information pertaining to DIMTS Limited, a decision shall be taken by the Commission as and when the Division Bench of the High Court pronounces its decision on whether DIMT is a Public Authority or not.
Comments
Even after seven years of the coming in force of the Act, confusion about whether an organisation is covered under the RTI Act denotes a poor state of affairs.
Citation: Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit Limited in File No: CIC/AD/C/2012/001372
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/839
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission