Manner of utilisation of foreign contribution by Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence as per FCRA - Complaint against non-compliance of CIC directions - CIC: Reply sent by the Respondent is inadequate; A clear and accurate response should be furnished
26 Jan, 2024Details of manner in which the foreign contribution was utilised by Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence as per FCRA and dates of physical inspection - CIC: Provide a revised reply furnishing accurate information to the Appellant within three weeks - Complaint against non- compliance of the directions of CIC - CIC: Reply sent by the Respondent is inadequate and hence, it is hereby directed that a clear and accurate response should be furnished
Information sought and background of the case:
(1) CIC/MHOME/A/2022/633601
(2) CIC/DHOME/A/2022/633491
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 14.03.2022 and the PIO/Director, MHA, Foreigners Division, vide letter dated 11.04.2022 replied as under:-
“Kindly provide replies against the following queries about an Association i.e. Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence (Registration No.- 231660668) under RTI Act, 2005:
1) Kindly provide me a certified copy of Form FC-6/Form FC-7/Form FC-8, accompanied by
i) an income and expenditure statement,
ii) receipt and payment account, and
iii) Balance sheet,
which were submitted by/on behalf of the above-mentioned Association regarding the financial year ended on 31st March, 2021, as per Section 18 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 read with Rule 17 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011.
2) Kindly provide me a copy of details of manner in which the foreign contribution was utilised by the above-mentioned Association regarding the financial year ended on 31 March, 2021, as per Section 18 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 read with Rule 17 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011.
3) Has the Ministry of Home Affairs conducted physical inspection of the activities done by the said Association ever? If yes, provide me the relevant dates for the said purpose.”
The PIO replied as under:
“1. As per information available with the undersigned CPIO, it is to inform that Forms FC- 6A, FC-6B, FC-6C, FC-6D and FC-6E are regarding change details of the association. Form FC-7 is regarding surrender of FCRA registration of the association. Income and expenditure statement, Receipt and payment statement and balance sheet are not mandatory to be submitted along with these forms.
There is no Form FC 8 in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011. Hence, sought information is ambiguous and indeterminate and not available in this office.
2. You have sought clarifications instead of seeking information as defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. Such clarifications do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. It is to inform that CPIO is not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumption or to interpret information.
For further information related to FCRA, please refer the website www.fcraonline.nic.in
3. Sought information is not available is not available in this office. However, some of the sought information may be available with Monitoring Unit (MU). Hence, this part of RTI application is forwarded to the CPIO, MU.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent represented by Shri Rama Kant Sharma, DS, MHA, participated in the hearing through video conference. He submitted that with respect to point no. 1 of the RTI Application, Income and Expenditure statement, Receipt and Payment Statement and Balance Sheet are not mandatory to be submitted along with Form FC- 6 and FC-7 and further there is no form FC-8 in Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011. Accordingly, an adequate reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.04.2022.He further submitted that with respect to the remaining points of the RTI Application, an adequate reply was given by the Monitoring Unit on 27.06.2022, wherein the information has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission enquired whether the First Appeal had been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. The Respondent submitted that the First Appeal has been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority on 26.04.2023.
A written submission has been received from Shri Rama Kant Sharma, DS, MHA, vide letter dated 06.06.2023, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
1. RTI applicant filed the application on 14/03/2022, wherein the applicant had sought information regarding Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence (Reg. No. 231660668).
2. The RTI application was examined and the replies to the RTI applicant were sent vide letters dated 11/04/2022 (by CPIO/ FCRA, Annexure-I) and 27/06/2023 (by CPIO/ MU, Annexure-II)
3. Subsequently, the RTI Applicant had filed First Appeal dated 15/04/2022 on the ground 'Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information'.
4. Accordingly, an order dated 26/04/2023 was issued by First Appellate Authority (Annexure-III).
5. Further, in pursuance to the 2nd Appeal filed by the Applicant, it is submitted that the reply to the RTI Application has already been given by the concerned CPIOS. Further, the First Appeal on the matter was also examined and the same was also disposed off. In view of this, there does not seem any action pending.
The notings reveal that the PIO had passed another order dated 27.06.2022 stating as under:
2. As the information sought by you pertains to third party, hence comments/written submission under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 were sought from the third party regarding disclosure of the information. Third party has now submitted written submission under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and had requested not to disclose the sought information. The reply of the third party has been considered and the CPIO is of the view that the sought information is of such a nature that has no relation to any public activity. CPIO is also of the view that no larger public interest justifies the disclosure. Therefore, sought information is exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. and Section 11(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The FAA had vide order dated 26.04.2023 upheld the replies dated 11.04.2022 and 27.06.2022 passed by the CPIO.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent on point no. 1 of the RTI Application, the replies provided by the Respondent on points no. 2 and 3 of the RTI Application are not satisfactory. The request at point 2 is not seeking a clarification and the query at point 3 is quite clear and should elicit a succinct response. Hence, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply furnishing accurate information to the Appellant. This revised reply should be sent to the Appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report in this regard should be submitted by the Respondent before this Commission by 31.07.2023.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.
Non compliance: 04.01.2024
The Appellant approached the Commission with a non-compliance application dated 27.06.2023.
The Respondent vide letter dated 05.09.2023 stated as under:
2. In compliance to the direction of the CIC vide its order dated 27.06.2023, the revised reply for point no. 2 and 3 are given hereunder:-
The sought information is personal in nature and disclosure of the same has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, disclosure of the sought information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the details about FCRA may be seen by visiting website https://fcraonline.nic.in.
Pursuant to this the Appellant filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 14983/2023 before the Delhi High Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 which was decided with the following observation:
“7. The CIC is requested to consider the application filed by the Petitioner complaining about non-compliance of its own order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today…”
Hence the instant appeals are scheduled for hearing before the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: 04.01.2024
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present
Respondent: Shri K Sanjayan – Director was present during the hearing.
The Appellant contended that despite directions of the Commission, the Respondent has given an evasive reply denying disclosure of information. Hence, he seeks that the non compliance of the directions of the Commission may be duly adjudicated. The Respondent referred to the PIO’s reply dated 27.06.2022 whereby the Appellant had been duly informed that: information sought by him at query number 2 pertains to third party, hence comments/written submission under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 were sought from the third party regarding disclosure of the information. Third party has now submitted written submission under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and had requested not to disclose the sought information.
In so far as the query number 3 is concerned, the reply dated 05.09.2023 is not in consonance with the directions issued by the Commission.
Decision:
Pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the Commission has re-considered the application filed by the Appellant regarding non-compliance of the Commission’s order dated 15.06.2023. It is noted that the reply sent by the Respondent is inadequate and hence, it is hereby directed that a clear and accurate response should be furnished by the Respondent with respect to the queries number 2 and 3, within two weeks of receipt of this order.
The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard.
The appeals are disposed off with the above directions.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Pankaj Tyagi v. Ministry of Home Affairs, (FCRA Wing), Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2022/633601 & CIC/DHOME/A/2022/633491; Date of Decision of Non compliance case: 04.01.2024