CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2 nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110066 Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2014/000528/SB Dated: 09.03.2017 Complainant: Shri K. Kashinathan, 56, Rameswaram Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017, Tamil Nadu. Respondent: The Director, Institute of Rural Management, IRMA, Anand, Gujarat 388001. Date of Hearing : 28.12.2015/12.02.2016/21.04.2016/ 01.07.2016/27.07.2016/10.11.2016/ 29.11.2016/12.01.2017 ORDER 1. Shri K. Kashinathan, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on 07.04.2014 with the CPIO, Institute of Rural Management (IRMA), seeking information regarding Written Test (Online) on Issues of Social Concern - February 2014, on the following points: i. Copy of his answer sheet as ordered by Supreme Court in the UPSC case 2011. How the complainant has scored 36 marks out of 40, though all answers were correct. ii. Why have the rules of selection not mentioned i.e. the weightage for CAT ad ISC examination. iii. Reasons for cut off marks of 35% for ISC and 37.5% for CAT. Why this was not mentioned in the admission notification as mandated by Supreme Court. iv. Why was there a delay in the declaration the result. Page 1 of 10
v. CAT marks and ISC marks of each of the candidates short listed for Group Activity and Interview separately for OC, OBC and SC/ST. 2. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.05.2014 provided para wise information to the complainant. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint dated 11.10.2014 before the Commission. 3. The matter was listed on 14.08.2015 before the Commission. However, the respondent sought adjournment for submission of written arguments. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 09.09.2015. Hearing on 09.09.2015: 4. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Sayid Marzook, representing the respondent was present in person. 5. The respondent submitted that IRMA is not a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent also made a written submission in the matter which has been taken on record. The respondent requested the Commission to decide this issue in this matter. 6. The Commission observes that in order to decide whether the IRMA is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 or not, further documents are required for examination. 7. The respondent is directed to submit the following documents with the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Annual reports of last 3 years; IT return for last 3 years; Details of grant received from the government/any organization/public from the inception of the institute; Balance sheet of last 3 years; Page 2 of 10
(v) (vi) Copy of land allotment agreement; and Allotment details, area of land, actual cost of land etc. Hearing on 28.12.2015 8. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan and the respondent were absent despite notice. 9. This matter is adjourned to 12.02.2016 at 1:15 pm. Hearing on 12.02.2016: 10. Shri Sayid Marzook, representing the respondent was present in person. 11. The Commission directed the respondent to file additional documents before 09.03.2016. The case is adjourned to 16.03.2016 at 1:00pm. 12. Due to administrative reasons the case has further been adjourned to 21.04.2016. Hearing on 21.04.2016: 13. The complainant Shri K.Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Ashutosh Ghade, Advocate, representing the respondent was present in person. 14. The respondent sought extension of time for filing additional documents relevant for concluding the issue involved in the matter. 15. The Commission accedes to the request of the respondent and thereby, adjourns the matter to 01.07.2016 at 1.00 p.m. 16. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties. Page 3 of 10
Hearing on 01.07.2016: 17. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Sayid Marzook, Legal Representative representing the respondent was present in person. 18. The respondent sought extension of time for filing some more documents relevant to the issues involved in the matter. 19. The Commission accedes to the request of the respondent and thereby, adjourns the matter to 27.07.2016 at 1.15 p.m. Hearing on 27.07.2016: 20. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Sayid Marzook, Legal Representative representing the respondent was present in person. 21. The counsel for the respondent submitted certain additional documents dated 27.07.2016 indicating the modus operandi undertaken by IRMA so as to cover the deficits reflected in the income-expenditure statement of IRMA. 22. The Commission directs the respondent to provide, by 31.10.2016, the Income and Expenditure statement of IRMA since its inception as per the following table: - Year Total Income Interest Income from initial corpus Total Income (-) Interest Income (2-3) Total Expenditure Excess/Deficit of Income over Expenditure (4-5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. The matter is adjourned to 10.11.2016 at 10.30. am. Page 4 of 10
Hearing on 10.11.2016: 24. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was not present despite notice. The Counsel for IRMA Shri Sayid Marzook Bafaki, vide his email dated 09.11.2016 sought exemption from personal appearance. 25. Shri Sayid Marzook Bafaki, counsel for IRMA vide his email dated 09.11.2016 requested the Commission to adjourn the hearing as he is unable to attend the hearing due to some pressing personal problem. 26. The Commission, considered the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 29.11.2016 at 10.30 am. Hearing on 29.11.2016: 27. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Sayid Marzook, Legal Representative representing the respondent was present in person. 28. The respondent requested the Commission to grant him some more time to make additional submissions in the case. 29. The Commission, considered the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 12.01.2017 at 11.30 am. Hearing on 12.01.2017: 30. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Sayid Marzook, Legal Representative of the respondent was present in person. 31. The respondent submitted that the present proceedings arise from the complaint of the complainant. The respondent submitted that the basic issue to be adjudicated in the present matter is whether IRMA is a Public Authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Page 5 of 10
32. The respondent further submitted that in order to declare any body/organization as Public Authority, parameters of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act have to be satisfied and since the complainant has alleged that IRMA is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the Act, as per the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 9017/2013 dated 07.10.2013 (hereinafter referred to as Thalappalam ), the burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information as per the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court reproduced below: 50. 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 33. Therefore, the onus is on the complainant in the present case to assert that IRMA is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government. Nonetheless, the respondent would like to establish as to how the parameters of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act cannot be satisfied as IRMA is an educational institution established for providing management education, training, research and consultancy support to co-operatives and rural development organizations in India. Ownership: 34. The respondent with regard to the ownership of IRMA, submitted that it was established in the year 1979 at Anand in the State of Gujrat by the IRMA Society, which is registered as a Society under the Society s Registration Act, 1860. Thus, the IRMA was established by the Society as an educational institution for imparting education in the field of Rural Management. The respondent further submitted that as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which was executed by and between Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and IRMA, IRMA has been referred to as an autonomous Page 6 of 10
body. Hence, IRMA cannot be said to be owned by the appropriate Government as it functions as per its Memorandum of Association. 35. The respondent further submitted that the complainant has also assigned another reason for declaring IRMA as Public Authority which is that IRMA follows reservation policy. However, it goes without saying that this parameter is of no relevance in deciding whether IRMA is a Public Authority or not since the same is no ground to declare a body as a Public Authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Control: 36. The respondent with regard to the complainant s claim that IRMA is controlled by the Government since most of the members on the Board of Governors are from public sector or the co-operative sector, submitted that IRMA was established by the Society as an educational institution for imparting education in the field of Rural Management. The Society has its Memorandum of Association and Rules for its internal functioning, which reveals that the Board of Governors of the Society is not at all dominated by the public sector as sought to be suggested by the complainant. Merely because a representative each from the Central Government, the State Government and the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) is nominated to the Board of Governors of the Society which has a total strength of 17 members, it cannot be said that there is an over- dominance of public sector in the Board of Governors of the Society. Further, it also deserves to be appreciated that the representation of the Central Government and State Government on the Board of Governors of the Society in the form of a representative each is there as the Society opted for it by a making a provision for the same in its Rules. Thus, it is not on account of any right vested in either the Central or the State Government. Similarly, the representation of co-operative sector is confined to only 3 members in the 17-member Board of Governors of the Society. Thus, in other words, the 3 members on the Board of Governors of the Society falling in the category of co-operative sector in generic term are representing a particular Page 7 of 10
group of the members of the Society. Besides this, in the definition of the term Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, there is nothing to indicate that the presence of co-operative sector in the setup of any body is of any consequence for holding such body as Public Authority there under. As a matter of fact, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam (Supra) has held that merely because a body is registered as a co-operative society under the relevant statute, such body would not ipso facto become the Public Authority under the RTI Act. Thus, when a body which falls under the category of co-operative sector is not per se a Public Authority for the purpose of the RTI Act, it is indeed not possible to appreciate as to how the presence of such cooperative sector in the setup of another body would render such body as Public Authority. As per the definition of the term Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, a body has to be controlled by either the Central Government or the State Government in order to be declared as Public Authority thereunder. However, the representation of the aforesaid nature from the Central Government and the State Government in the Board of Governors of the Society does not convey that the Society and IRMA are controlled by either the Central Government or the State Government or both. Also, the control referred to by Section 2(h) of the RTI Act has to be deep and pervasive control. Therefore, mere presence of a representative each from the Central Government and the State Government on the 17-member Board of Governors of the Society on account of the same having been voluntarily opted by the Society in its Rules cannot imply any control by either the Central Government or the State Government. Funding: 37. The respondent submitted that another reason assigned by the complainant for holding IRMA as Public Authority is that in the year 2013-2014, IRMA was provided with a grant of Rs. 25 crore by the Central Government. However, such one-time grant given to IRMA by the Central Government would not have the effect of conveying that IRMA stands substantially financed by the Central Government. As per Section 2(h)(d)(i) of Page 8 of 10
the Act, the funding should be substantial in nature. Further, financial assistance can be said to be of substantial nature if it emerges that without such financial assistance the body concerned would not have survived or would have difficulty in surviving. In this context, it is pertinent to notice the Supreme Court s observation in the Thalappalam case (Supra) wherein, it was held that funding cannot be termed substantial unless the records show that the funding was so substantial to the body that it practically runs from that funding and would struggle to exist without the said funding. However, in the present case, the grants received by IRMA from the Governmental agencies are for specific purposes. Also, the income from the initial corpus received from NDDB is excluded from the income-expenditure statement of IRMA as the same has to be utilized for the purposes stated in Note on Item No. 14 on the agenda of the 40 th Board meeting of NDDB. These purposes include providing IRMA s services to NDDB free of cost, except operation cost such as those of boarding, lodging, materials and supplies. Further, IRMA does not charge any tuition fee from the managers/officers sponsored by NDDB for attending IRMA s Post Graduate Programme in Rural Management. The respondent further submitted that IRMA can survive without these grants because at present it charges lesser fees from students as compared to the fees charged by similarly placed counterpart institutes of management and the fees could be raised in order to fill any deficit that arises. Hence, there is no funding of substantial nature by the appropriate Government to IRMA and accordingly, the parameter of substantial funding is also not satisfied. Decision 38. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the written submissions made by both the parties, agrees with the respondent that as per the Hon ble Supreme Court s Decision in the case of Thalappalam, the onus is on the complainant to establish that IRMA is either owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government in order to satisfy Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. However, the onus was not discharged conclusively by the complainant. In view of this, the Commission is Page 9 of 10
of the opinion that it would not be judicious to adjudicate upon the issue relating to declaration of IRMA as a Public Authority. 39. With the above observation, the complaint is disposed of. 40. Copy of the decision be provided to both the parties free of cost. Authenticated true copy. (Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer Page 10 of 10