Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Hedgewar Seva Samiti, a trust conducting an Agricultural Science Centre, challenged an order of the State Information Commission, Nashik, dated 21st December 2010, which imposed a penalty under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent no.1, Purushottam Joshi, had sought information from the trust. The trust appointed an Information Officer and an appellate authority and provided information, but later contested the applicability of the RTI Act. The High Court framed two issues: whether the trust is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(i) of the Act, and whether the first proviso to Section 20(1) was complied with before imposing penalty. The court noted that the definition of 'public authority' requires the body to be owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. The trust argued that it received no state funding and thus was not covered. The court also observed that the Commission did not issue a show cause notice or provide an opportunity of hearing as required by the first proviso to Section 20(1). The court held that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Right to Information Act - Definition of Public Authority - Section 2(h)(i) - Body owned, controlled or substantially financed - The petitioner trust, though having appointed an Information Officer and appellate authority, is not covered under the RTI Act unless it is substantially financed by the government. Mere appointment of officers does not create acquiescence to jurisdiction. (Paras 3-5) B) Right to Information Act - Penalty - Section 20(1) - First proviso - Show cause notice and opportunity of hearing - The State Information Commission failed to follow the mandatory first proviso to Section 20(1) before imposing penalty. The order is set aside on this ground alone. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner trust is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether the first proviso to Section 20(1) was followed before imposing penalty.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 21st December 2010 passed by the State Information Commission, Bench at Nashik, in Appeal No.2010/RMA/CR/1937/2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the State Information Commission for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(i) of RTI Act requires body to be owned
- controlled or substantially financed by government
- Penalty under Section 20(1) requires show cause notice and opportunity of hearing before imposition
