Church of Christ Mission in India Vs C.G. Information Commission

Church of Christ Mission in India, Education Department (Schools Established & Administered by a Minority Community), Kududand, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) through its Mission Secretary Shri M. Kujur, son of Late Budhwa Kujur, aged about 40 years, Kududand, Bilaspur.

¶21

... Petitioner

¶22

versus

¶23

2 / 23

¶24

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur.

¶25

C.G. Information Commission, through its Secretary, Raipur.

¶26

Director, Public Instructions Chhattisgarh, Raipur.

¶27

Collector (Right to Information), Bilaspur (CG).

¶28

The District Education Officer, Bilaspur (CG)

¶29

... Respondents

¶30

	WPC No.2224 o	f 2009
For Petitioners	: Mr. Malay Shr	ivastava, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. Shyam Advocate WPC No.2267 o	Sunder Lal Tekchandani, f 2009
For Petitioners	: Mr. Malay Shr	ivastava, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. Shyam Advocate	Sunder Lal Tekchandani,
	WPC No.379 of	2011
For Petitioner	: Mr. Malay Shr	ivastava, Advocate
For Respondents-State	: Mr. H.A.P.S. B	hatia, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Shyam Advocate	Sunder Lal Tekchandani,

¶31

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶32

C A V Order

¶33

1. Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respective petitioners in all the three writ petitions. Also heard Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, learned counsel, appearing for the Chhattisgarh Information Commission.

¶34

2. Since common question of fact and law is involved in all the three writ petitions, they have been heard together and are being disposed by this common order. In all the three writ petitions, the

¶35

3 / 23

¶36

grievance of the petitioners are one and the same and they are related to each other.

¶37

3. In WPC No.2224 of 2009 and WPC No.2267 of 2009, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Chhattisgarh Information Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) in Case Nos.763 of 2007 and 725 of 2007, respectively, whereby the Commission has imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. Rs.20,000/- on the Church of Christ Mission in India School, Kududand, Bilaspur as a failure to provide information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2005”) as well as imposed a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to be paid to the complainant.

¶38

4. In WPC No.379 of 2011, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.01.2011 issued by respondent No.5 bearing No.3448/lw-viz-/vihy iz- dz- 781/07/2011 whereby respondent No.5 has directed the petitioner to make available the information sought for by the complainant Mr. R.C. Franklin within a period of two days, failing which, penal action has been proposed against the petitioner.

¶39

5. Brief facts for disposal of WPC No.2224 of 2009 and WPC No.2267 of 2009 are as follows :-

¶40

The petitioner association is a society registered under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1860 having its registration No.11 of 1953/54. The church of Christ Mission in India consists of Bible believing Christians, associated together in faith in order to reveal the church found in the Scriptures, in matters of

¶41

4 / 23

¶42

doctrine, life, service and hope. The members of the association belong to religious minority group in India and Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which confers fundamental right to such institution to establish and administer educational institution. The association has established various schools in the India including in the State of Chhattisgarh to impart education amongst the people. The schools established by the association in the State of Chhattisgarh are as under:

¶43

(i) Church of Christ Primary School, Kududand, Bilaspur

¶44

(ii) Church of Christ Primary School, Chanduabhata

¶45

(iii) Shafer Higher Secondary School, Kududand, Bilaspur.

¶46

• The State of Chhattisgarh provides grant-in-aid to these schools, for payment of salary to the teachers working in the school established by the petitioner association, however, the grant-inaid was not received by the association and no amount of grantin-aid received by the schools established by the association was utilized for the activities of the Church. In sum and substance, the grant-in-aid was received by the schools and the same was utilized by the schools itself for the purposes of making payment of salary to the teachers. The schools receiving grant-in-aid are governed by the C.G. Aashashkiye Shikshan Sansthan (Adyapako Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandai) Adhiniyam, 1978 and the association has no role to play in either receipt or expenditure of grant-in-aid provided by the State Government to the schools. Hence, it was apparent that

¶47

5 / 23

¶48

the association is not a Public Authority under Section 2 (h) of the Act of 2005.

¶49

Complainant- Mr. R.C. Franklin (whose name was deleted as per Court order dated 13.02.2020 as he died on 02.12.2010) moved an applications dated 04.10.2007 and 09.08.2007 before the Commission stating therein that certain information with regard to the functioning of the Church of Christ be provided to him under the Act of 2005. The information sought by the complainant are as follows:

¶50

The name and address of the managing officer.

¶51

Income and expenses, Balance sheets, other financial letter.

¶52

1. Schools under the organization, details of Church and training institution showing details of following points:

¶53

3.1) Number organization. of schools run by organization.

¶54

3.2) Since when these schools are run.

¶55

3.3) Out of these how many schools are receiving government aid and since when?

¶56

3.4) Details of yearly income of each school.

¶57

3.5) Details of yearly expenses of each school.

¶58

How many churches have received and still receiving the aid which is run by the organization. Yearly information of those churches.

¶59

6 / 23

¶60

4.1. How many churches are run by the organization?

¶61

4.2) Since when these churches are run.

¶62

4.3 Details of Yearly income received from local and foreign by each church.

¶63

4.4) Details of Yearly expenses of local and foreign income received by each church.

¶64

How many training institution has received aid? How many training organization are receiving aid? Details of each training institutions.

¶65

5.1 How many training institution are run by Organization.

¶66

5.2 Since when these training institutions are run.

¶67

5.3 Details of Yearly income received from local and foreign by training institution.

¶68

5.4 Details of Yearly expenses of local and foreign income received by each training institution.

¶69

• Since the said information related to society which was not the Public Authority as defined under the Act of 2005, therefore, the Information Commissioner ought to have rejected the application as the Act of 2005 was not applicable to the societies. On the basis of applications dated 04.10.2007 and 04.09.2007, the Commission registered the case Nos.763 of 2007 and 725 of 2007, respectively and issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. The matter was taken up for hearing on 02.05.2008 and on the said date, it was stated on behalf of the complainant

¶70

7 / 23

¶71

that the State Government has given grant-in-aid of more than Rs.2 Lacs in an year to the schools established by the association. On the basis of statement of the complainant, the Commission had issued a direction to the petitioner association to allow the complainant to inspect the record of the desired information free of cost and thereafter, accepted the list of information sought for by the complainant as also provided the same free of cost up to Rs.100/-. The Commission further directed the association to appoint Public Information Officer and fixed the matter for hearing on 26.06.2008.

¶72

• On 26.06.2008, no one was present and the matter was fixed for 26.09.2008 and on 26.09.2008, one Mr. Alok Wilson was appeared on behalf of the complainant. On the submission of the petitioner that said Mr. Alok Wilson was not an Advocate and he had no authority to appear on behalf of the complainant, therefore, Commission ought not to have recorded the presence of Mr. Alok Wilson and directed to issue notice for payment of penalty of Rs.10,000/- each.

¶73

On 29.01.2009, the petitioner filed reply to show-cause notice and stated that the petitioner do not receive any grant-in-aid from the State Government. On the said date, the Commission had directed the petitioner to supply information sought for by the complainant within a period of 15 days free of cost.

¶74

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the documents, the Commission has passed the order

¶75

8 / 23

¶76

on 04.04.2009 imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. Rs.20,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005 for delay in appointing the Public Information Officer as also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act of 2005.

¶77

6. Brief facts for disposal of WPC No.379 of 2011 are as follows :-

¶78

The petitioner was a society of minority community which is duly registered under the relevant provisions of the Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner society was established in order to promote the work of Church of Christ in India and in order to level Christ by commission of eveagostic for preaching of Christ. The petitioner society does not receive any aid either from State Government or the Central Government for the functioning of mission except the aid for the payment of teachers' salary for the schools

¶79

One Mr. R.C. Franklin, resident of Franklin Villa, Chandni Chowk, Kududand, Bilaspur has moved an application under the Act of 2005 seeking certain information in respect of the petitioner society. On the application moved by him, the Commission has passed an order dated 22.10.2010 directing the petitioner to provide all the information sought by the complainant free of cost and within two months, the compliance of the order be reported to the Commission.

¶80

On the basis of the order dated 22.10.2010, a letter dated 08.12.2010 has been issued directing the respondent No.4 to

¶81

9 / 23

¶82

ensure compliance of the order dated 22.10.2010. On the basis of letter dated 08.12.2010, respondent No.4 vide letter dated 24.12.2010 directed the respondent No.5 i.e. District Education Officer, Bilaspur to comply with the order dated 22.10.2010.

¶83

• In compliance of the letter dated 24.12.2010 issued by respondent No.4, respondent No.5 issued a letter dated 24.12.2010 directing the petitioner society to comply with the order dated 20.10.2010. In response to the letter dated 24.12.2010, the petitioner informed respondent No.5 through vide its reply dated 30.12.2010 that the complainant has died on 02.12.2010, therefore, the matter stands abated. However, in spite of the fact that said Mr. R.C. Franklin has died on 02.12.2010, respondent No.5 has again issued a letter dated 12.01.2011 directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 22.10.2010 and furnish all the information to the complainant within two days and if the petitioner failed to comply with the order, the consequential action/penal action has been proposed against the petitioner.

¶84

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPC No.2224 of 2009 and WPC No.2267 of 2009 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commission is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as in the similar case bearing Case No.422 of 2006; parties being, Shri Rakesh Choubey v. Public Information Officer, Raipur, the Commission vide its order dated 12.09.2006 has

¶85

10 / 23

¶86

taken a view that grant-in-aid is received by the school and not by the society, however, refused to adopt the same in the instant case where also grant-in-aid is received by the schools and not by the association. It has been contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act of 2005. It is further contended that the petitioner society is a minority institution and it has a right to protect and manage its affairs and the State Government cannot interfere in the matters of minority institution. It has been argued that the Commission ought to have held that the petitioner association is a religious organization, which does not receive any grant-in-aid and therefore, not a Public Authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act of 2005. It has been lastly argued that the Commission ought to have dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-appearance on different dates, but learned Commission has passed an order directing penalty of Rs.20,000/as well as compensation of Rs.5,000/-, which deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2002)

¶87

8 SCC 481 .

¶88

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC No.379 of 2011 has submitted that the impugned order issued by respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submitted that since complainant himself has expired on 02.12.2010, it is impossible for

¶89

11 / 23

¶90

the petitioner to furnish the information as sought by the complainant in compliance of the order dated 22.10.2010. As such, the impugned order of respondent No.5 is void ab-initio. It is contended that on account of the death of the Mr. R.C. Franklin (complainant), the order passed by the Commission has become abated.

¶91

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Commission in all the three writ petitions has submitted that the petitioner society is running the schools and in fact, they are controlling and managing the affairs of the schools in the grant-in-aid provided to them by the State Government. He further submitted that a circular dated 21.11.2005 has been issued by the Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, according to which, the petitioner society is receiving the grant-in-aid from the State Government, as such, the petitioner society is required to give information as the same is covered by Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. It has been argued that the petitioner society is managing the affairs of the schools and they cannot escape from liability to give information to the complainant or any other person under the Act of 2005.

¶92

10. Learned State appearing in WPC No.379 of 2011 has submitted that the petitioner is an educational society and engaged in imparting education to the children and for the purpose of the same has established Schools at various places in the State of Chhattisgarh. He further submitted that the petitioner society is receiving grant-in-aid from the Department of Education,

¶93

12 / 23

¶94

Government of Chhattisgarh for making payment of salary to the teachers/staff. It is contended that the complainant has moved an application under the Act of 2005 and sought information from the petitioner society with regard to Schools which runs by the petitioner society in the title of “Church of Christ Mission of India”. It is further contended that in compliance of the order dated 22.10.2010 passed by respondent No.2, the order dated 12.01.2011 has been issued by respondent No.5 directing the petitioner to make available the information sought for by the complainant within a period of 2 days, otherwise penal action has been proposed against the petitioner. It has been argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondent No.5 and the order impugned has been passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶95

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered their rival submission made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively.

¶96

12. It is relevant to note that seeker of information under the Act of 2005 i.e. Mr. R.C. Franklin had died on 02.12.2010 and his name was also deleted as per Court order dated 13.02.2020.

¶97

13. When WPC No.2224 of 2009 was taken up for hearing on 30.04.2009, an interim order was passed, which is reproduced herein-below for ready reference :-

¶98

“Heard Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.

¶99

13 / 23

¶100

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - Mission is a registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner is not receiving any finance or grants-in-aid from the Government and, as such, the petitioner is not a public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short "the Act, 2005) read with notifications issued by the State Government. The information sought by the respondent No.2 relates to functioning of the petitioner Mission, which is not within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner under the provisions of the Act, 2005.

¶101

Issue notice to the respondents, in accordance with the rules.

¶102

Ι.Α.No.1

¶103

This is an application for grant of interim relief. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 4-4-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Information Commission, Raipur, shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.

¶104

Accordingly, I.A. No.1 stands disposed of.”

¶105

14. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to quote Section 2(h)

¶106

of the Act of 2005, which is reproduced herein-below for easy reference :-

¶107

“ 2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless the context

otherwise requires,—

x x x

14 / 23

x x x

(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted—

¶113

(a) by or under the Constitution;

¶114

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

¶115

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

¶116

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—

¶117

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

¶118

(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;”

¶119

15. In the matter of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State cannot regulate or control admissions in Minority Educational Institutions, constituting a serious encroachment on the right enshrined under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶120

16. Now coming to the case at hand, it is apparent that the petitioner society is running each and every school, they are directly involved with the affairs of the school as well as with the Government and the State Government has provided grant-in-aid for managing the affairs of the schools. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the institutions are having minimal control over the affairs of the schools, is not acceptable in the facts of the case.

¶121

15 / 23

¶122

The control, even if, it is minimal can be termed as “control” and not otherwise. As such, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of the present case and the same is of no help to the petitioner.

¶123

17. In the matter of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others v. State of Kerala and others reported in (2013) 16 SCC 82 , Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of embrace within the act, of an entity, which is owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly or funds have been provided by the appropriate government or nongovernmental organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. The meaning of the words ‘substantially financed’ has been dealt with in paras 46 to 48, which are quoted below for ready reference :-

¶124

“ Substantially financed

¶125

The words “substantially financed” have been used in Sections 2(h)(d)(i) and (ii), while defining the expression public authority as well as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression “appropriate Government”. A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The expression “substantially financed”, as such, has not been defined under the Act. “Substantial” means “in a substantial manner so as to be substantial”. In Palser v. Grinling

¶126

16 / 23

¶127

(1948 AC 291) , while interpreting the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, the House of

¶128

Lords held that “substantial” is not the same as “not unsubstantial” i.e. just enough to avoid the de minimis principle. The word “substantial” literally means solid, massive, etc. The legislature has used the expression “substantially financed” in Sections 2(h) (d)(i) and (ii) indicating that the degree of financing must be actual, existing, positive and real to a substantial extent, not moderate, ordinary, tolerable, etc.

¶129

We often use the expressions “questions of law” and “substantial questions of law” and explain that any question of law affecting the right of parties would not by itself be a substantial question of law. In Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) the word “substantial” is defined as

¶130

“Substantial.—Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. …Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. ... Synonymous with material.”

¶131

The word “substantially” has been defined to mean “essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially”. In Shorter Oxford English

¶132

17 / 23

¶133

Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word “substantial” means “of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; solid; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure, etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough”. The word “substantially” has been defined to mean “in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically”. Therefore the word “substantial” is not synonymous with “dominant” or “majority”. It is closer to “material” or “important” or “of considerable value”. “Substantially” is closer to “essentially”. Both words can signify varying degrees depending on the context.

¶134

Merely providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges, etc. as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist. The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD, etc. but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act. But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety-five per cent grantin-aid from the appropriate Government, may

¶135

18 / 23

¶136

answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i).

¶137

Non-Government Organisations

¶138

The term “Non-Government Organisations” (NGO), as such, is not defined under the Act. But, over a period of time, the expression has got its own meaning and, it has to be seen in that context, when used in the Act. Government used to finance substantially, several non-government organizations, which carry on various social and welfare activities, since those organizations sometimes carry on functions which are otherwise governmental. Now, the question, whether an NGO has been substantially financed or not by the appropriate Government, may be a question of fact, to be examined by the authorities concerned under the RTI Act. Such organization can be substantially financed either directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. Government may not have any statutory control over the NGOs, as such, still it can be established that a particular NGO has been substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government, in such an event, that organization will fall within the scope of Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act. Consequently, even private organizations which are, though not owned or controlled but substantially financed by the appropriate Government will also fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act.”

¶139

19 / 23

¶140

18. It is thus clear that the word ‘substantially financed’ would mean a support which is solid or massive or of considerable value. The word ‘substantially’ is closer to 'material' or 'important’. The Supreme Court clearly opined that merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist.

¶141

19. If we examine the facts of the present cases in the light of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited (supra), it is apparent that the petitioner society comes within the meaning of term ‘substantially financed’ as has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The petitioner society would, thus, be covered within the term ‘Public Authority’ as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act of 2005.

¶142

20. Once a registered society is found to be a Public Authority, the Commission has the jurisdiction to direct the society to provide information to an individual under the Act of 2005. Moreover, the petitioner society being a Public Authority, substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government, is liable to give information under the Act of 2005 as the same is having control over the institutions.

¶143

21. At this stage, it would be relevant to extract the circular dated

¶144

20 / 23

¶145

21.11.2005 issued by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, from which, it has been clarified that the petitioner society is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. Circular dated 21.11.2005 is reproduced hereinbelow for easy reference :-

¶146

दाऊ कलयाण ि ् सह भ�न ሺ , मं् ቔ ालय

¶147

dz मांक एफ 7-6/05/1/6/ रायपुर, विदनांक 21 न�म्बर, 2005

¶148

izfr

¶149

1 समस्त अपर मुख्य सचि(�/्ቚमुख सचि(� सचि(�/संयु्ሹ सचि(� छ्ቈीसगढ़ शासन ।

¶150

समस्त जि-लाध्य्ቌ छ्ቈीसगढ़ ।

¶151

वि�षय-सू(ना का अचि2कार अचि2विनयम, 2005 के अन्तग4त लोक ्ቚाचि2कारी की विनयुवि्ሹ ।

¶152

सू(ना का अचि2कार अचि2विनयम, 2005 की 2ारा-2 के तहत लोक ्ቚाचि2कारी की परिरभाषा दी गई है। इस परिरभाषा अनुसार राज्य में विनम्न ्ቚकार से लोक ्ቚाचि2कारी होंगे ।

¶153

मं्ቔालय के समस्त वि�भाग ।

¶154

मं्ቔालयीन वि�भागान्तग4त समस्त वि�भागाध्य्ቌ ।

¶155

समस्त जि-लाध्य्ቌ ।

¶156

समस्त जि-ला पं(ायत, -नपद पं(ायत ए�ं ्ቇाम पं(ायत ।

¶157

समस्त नगर विनगम / नगरपालिलका / नगर पं(ायत ।

¶158

समቈኚत वि�्ቫवि�्ቕालय ।

¶159

राज्य शासन अन्तग4त काय4रत सभी बो्ቑ4, विनगम्, सविमचितयों (पं-ीकृत ए�ं अपं-ीकृत) आहे �ह कम्पनी अचि2विनयम, 1956, (ेरिरटेबल ट्रस्ट अचि2विनयम ए�ं सविमचित पं-ीकरण अचि2विनयम के अन्तग4त पं-ीकृत हो और / अथ�ा -ो राज्य शासन के मंवि्ቔपरिरषद् के विनन4य शासन विनण4य अचि2सू(ना अथ�ा राज्य के अचि2विनयम ्ቛारा गविMत विकये गये हो सभी स्�यं सेदी संस्थाएँ -ो विपछले �ष4 में शासन ते रूपये 2.00 लाख (दो लाख कंदल) या अपने टन4ओ�र का 25 ्ቚचितशत इसमें -ो कम हो अनुदान लिलया हो।

¶160

21 / 23

¶161

व ् ो्ሹ लोक ्ቚाचि2कारी सू(ना का अचि2कार अचि2विनयम, 2005 के ्ቚा�2ानों का केयान्(यन सुविनचिRत करेंगे। संबंचि2त सभी ्ቚशासकीय वि�भाग अपने अ2ीनस्थ आने �ाले लोक सनकारिरयों को सू(ना का अचि2कार अचि2विनयम, 2005 के विSयान्�यन सुविनचिRत करने हेतु तनय-समय पर आ�श्यक अनुदेश -ारी करेगे। कृपया -ारी आदेशों की ्ቚचित इस वि�भाग को ्ቚेविषत करें।

¶162

छ्ቈीसगढ़ के राज्यपाल के नाम से तथा आदेशानुसार

¶163

22. From bare perusal of the circular dated 21.11.2005, it appears that the petitioner society is coming within the purview of Section 2(h)(d) (ii) of the Act of 2005 as the same is non-Government organization substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government.

¶164

23. Considering the matters in entirety and after hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as well as considering the documents annexed with the writ petitions, particularly the circular dated 21.11.2005, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner society is coming within the purview of Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act of 2005 and it is bound to give information under the Act of 2005.

¶165

24. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court finds that respondent No.5 has rightly issued an order dated 12.01.2011 directing the petitioner to make available the information sought for by the petitioner within a period of 2 days, otherwise penal action has been proposed against the petitioner. However, the order dated

¶166

22 / 23

¶167

04.04.2009 passed by the Commission imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in each case i.e. Rs.20,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2005 as well as compensation of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act of 2005, is not in accordance with law as the Commission has not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner society.

¶168

25. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that complainant has already expired on 02.12.2010 and his name has also been deleted from the array of cause-title of memo of writ petitions vide order dated 13.02.2020 and further the fact that all the three institutions are run by the petitioner society, it seems that they are misunderstood the law governing the field, as such, the impugned order with regard to imposition of the fine amount is hereby set-aside.

¶169

26. In the result,

¶170

(i) WPC No.2224 of 2009 and WPC No.2267 of 2009 are hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Commission in Case Nos.763 of 2007 and 725 of 2007, is hereby set-aside.

¶171

(ii) WPC No.379 of 2011 is vague and devoid of any merit, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶172

27. In the aforesaid event, it is directed that since the complainant has already expired, the petitioner society is not liable to give any information as per application filed by him under, the Act of 2005. However, in future, if any person seeks any information under the

¶173

23 / 23

¶174

Act of 2005, the petitioner society is liable to give the information

¶175

under the Act of 2005.

¶176

28. With the aforesaid direction, all the writ petitions are hereby disposed of.

¶177

29. No order as to cost.

¶178

Sd/-