Dear Group Members, Please see the full text of the CIC Decision on Citizen Issue:
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Complaint Nos.CIC/WB/C/2007/00104 & 105 both dated 30.3.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18 Appellant - Shri J.C. Talukdar Respondent - C.E. (E), CPWD, Kolkata Facts: Shri J.C. Talukdar of Pan Bazar, Guwahati made two applications to C.E. (E), ER of CPWD Kolkata on 16.2.07, seeking the following information u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on: 1 (a) as to whether a site in Tezpur was handed over in stipulated date in accordance with the Agreement, (b) as to whether on which date the civil fronts were released to us for execution of electric works (c) the date of final completion of the civil works of the building – C/o of resdl. & non-resdl. Accommodation for 5th Assam Riffles at Chariduar, Assam (SH- Pvdg. IEI & Fans for 84 Nos. T-I Qrs. Against agreement No. 08/SE(E)/EE(E)/TZCED/2001-2002; & 2 release of civil fronts by the civil contractor for residential and non-residential maccommodation for 5th Assam Rifles at Chariduar, Assam against agreement no 33 /EE(E)/EE(E)/TZCED/2004-2005, together with some related information. A fee of Rs 50/- in one case and Rs 30/- in the other was submitted with the requests. This information was refused by Shri TK Das Dy Director(Admn) through two letters dated 21.3.07, although in the case listed at 1 above, it had been forwarded to EE (EL) Tezpur Central Electric Division on 22.2.’07 requesting that information relevant to his Division be supplkied to appellant Shri Talukdar ‘urgently’, purely on the grounds that it did not fall within sec. 3 of the RTI Act, and the fee returned. Shri Jyotish Chandra Talukdar, Managing Director of Ganesh Electric Stores has therefore moved two complaint before us u/s 18(b) (c) & (e) of the RTI Act, even though he describes these as “Appeal”. DECISION NOTICE This is at heart a question of whether a Company or its Director will fall under the definition of citizen under the RTI Act 2005. A company or a Corporation is a "legal person" and, as such, it has a legal entity. This legal entity is distinct from their shareholders, Managers or Managing Directors.. This is a settled position in law since the Solomon's case decided long back by the House of Lords. They have rights and obligations and can sue and are sued in a Court of Law. Section 3 of the RTI Act 2005 confers "Right to Information" on all "citizens". A "Citizen" under the Constitution Part II that deals with "citizenship" can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person. Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: "Person" does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not." The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens in order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual's right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company. The Bank Nationalization case has also established the view that the fundamental rights of shareholders as citizens are not lost when they associate to form a company.. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (decided on 21.7.1983), the Apex Court observed that the judicial trend is in the direction of holding that in the matter of fundamental freedoms guarantee by Article 19, the right of shareholder and the company which the shareholders have formed are rather co-extensive and the denial to one of the fundamental freedoms would be denial to the other. (Para 12) Even though, therefore the companies and Corporations have not been held to be a citizen, there are number of cases where the Apex Court has granted relief to petitioner companies. One of the case, which can be cited as an example is the Express Newspaper Case. But in such cases, the petitioners have claimed fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of the Newspapers companies. The same was the situation in Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. Case. A question may arise as to whether the case of a Firm is different from that of a company? In this regard following observations of Chagla, C.J. in Iron and Hardware (India) Co. v. Firm Sham Lal and Brothers, (AIR 1954 Bom 423) are pertinent: "In my opinion it is clear that there is no such legal entity as a firm. A firm is merely a compendious way of describing certain number of persons who carry on business as partners in a particular name, but in law and in the eye of the law the firm really consists of the individual partners who go to constitute that firm. Therefore, the persons before the tribunal are the individual partners of the firm and not a legal entity consisting of the firm." Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its share holders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior Courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the RTI Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants/ petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not "Citizens". This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entities. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant /appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen. In conclusion we direct that an application/ appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Secs. 6 and 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this Decision Notice Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17.5.2007 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (L.C. Singhi) Addl. Registrar 17.5.2007 ****** One more decision on 14-02-2008 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00264 dated 2.3.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant - Shri R. K. Sharma Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Delhi Police Facts: By an application of 14.2.06 Shri R. K. Sharma of Kalu Sarai, New Delhi applied to Addl. Commr. Of Police, Delhi seeking the following information: “We shall be grateful if a copy of complaint by Neutron Company against our company is issued to us with notings.” To this he received a response on 27.2.06 as follows: “It is regretted that the copy of the complaint with all notings as sought for is not being provided to you being the same exempted one u/s 8(1) (g) & 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” Shri Ashish Kumar Aggarwal, authorized representative of applicant Shri R. K. Sharma, then moved an appeal before the Jt. Commr. of Police (Crime) requesting him to reconsider their request. On his part Shri Ranjit Narayanan, Jt. Commissioner of Police, after examining the records came to the following conclusion: “Needless to say, when a complainant approaches to police he/she expects some sense of security and confidentiality. The PIO has therefore, rightly denied the copy of the sought reference as it falls under the exemption of section 8(1) (g) of RTI Act. Moreover, it will not be out of place to mention here that the section 3 of the RTI Act states that “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to the information” Since the company is neither a citizen nor a natural person, it is not entitled to seek information under the RTI Act. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable and disallowed.” In his appeal before us Shri R.K. Sharma has prayed as follows: “Copy of complaint lodged against FIITJEE with EOW, Delhi Police by M/s Neutron, Hyderabad on 16.01.06.” The appeal was heard on 14.2.08. The following are present: Respondents Shri K.K. Vyas, Addl. DCP, EOW Shri H. M. Bakshi, SHO,PS EOW Appellant Sh. R.K. Sharma had been informed by Notice dated 23.11.2007 regarding the hearing, but opted not to be present. Shri K. K. Vyas submitted that in this case there is a third party involved and the noting on the file contains information which may carry ramifications for sources of information or assistance given in confidence. Hence the decision to exempt the information sought from disclosure. DECISION NOTICE In this case we find that the information sought, substantiated by the appeal before us, is only for a copy of the complaint lodged with the police, and no other documentation. In his order in appeal Shri Ranjit Narayanan JCP has founfd that “the enquiry was subsequently closed as both the party had resolved the dispute amicably”. This being the case exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) cannot apply, nor has 1st appellate authority Shri Ranjit Narayanan so held. The issues, therefore, are two: 1. Whether the application can be entertained in light of sec. 3 of the RTI Act? 2. Whether the information sought can be disclosed since it concerns a third party? ISSUE NO. 1 We have held in other cases also that although the definition of ‘person’ and ‘citizen’ are not identical and, whereas a commercial entity can be a person but not a citizen, the Commission had decided to take a wider view in cases of RTI applications where the applicant was an identifiable citizen. In our decision in case No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00104 & 105 dated 17.5.2007 Shri J. C. Talukdar vs. C.E.(E) CPWD Kolkatta, we have held as below : “Even if it were conceded that a company or a corporate body is a legal entity distinct from its share holders and it is not in itself a citizen, it is a fact that all superior Courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under Article 19 of the Constitution of which the RTI Act, 2005 is child. Very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the applicants/ petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as such, not "Citizens". This Commission also has been receiving sizeable number of such applications from such entities. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, the PIOs also should not throw them out on a mere technical ground that the applicant /appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen. In conclusion we direct that an application/ appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed1. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Secs. 6 and 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this Decision Notice. In light of the above, we cannot treat the information sought by Shri R. K. Sharma as exempt from disclosure on this ground. ISSUE NO. 2 This is indeed third party information which as first Appellate Authority has pointed out is held in confidence. For this reason, PIO, Addl. DCP EOW will follow the procedure laid down in sec. 11(1) for referral to the third party and consequent on that take steps for disclosure, if he so concludes. In this regard, with reference to his concern for sources he may take recourse to Sec 10 sub-section (1) by severing that part of the information that he concludes warrants exemption u/s 8 (1) (g).This action may be completed within twenty working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 14.2.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 14.2.2008 ***** T N Krishnamoorthi Andaman --- On Thu, 12/3/09, AGNI <[email protected]> wrote: From: AGNI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Re: [rti_india] Is M/s.Lahari Recording Company a Citizen? CIC decision Regarding To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, 12 March, 2009, 4:06 PM Hello Mr. Nangia, Are you the same Mr. S.K. Nangia, AGNi Coordinator for R/South. Kind Regards, Austin AGNI Central Office On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 suresh nangia wrote : > Bhaskar In case CIC (Wajahat) has given a ruling > that Companies can also file RTI applications and seek > information, this strictly speaking is not > correct. RTI bestowes this right to a "citizen" only. > Companies are corporate entities established unfer > Companies Act and they have no rights at citizens. > Evean if some PIO or say even AA may have ceded this > request in some odd cases, this may have been done out > of ignorance, and this does not disprove the basic > maxim of RTI being the prerogative of Indian Citizens > only. > > NANGIA S K > > --- On Wed, 11/3/09, Bhaskar Prabhu > <mahitiadhikarmanch@ gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@ gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [rti_india] Is M/s.Lahari Recording > Company a Citizen? CIC decision Regarding > To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com > Date: Wednesday, 11 March, 2009, 11:42 PM > > > > > > > Dera Manoj, > I belive some where back Mr.Wajahatji has given order > that a company can > also seek information, > Bhaskar > > On 3/10/09, Manoj Pai <manoj...@yahoo. com> wrote: > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > IC Annapurna Dixit has recently delivered a decision > on a complain filed by > > M/s.Lahari Recording Company of Bangalore V/s AIR, > Delhi. The decision can > > be viewed the following link > > > > http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ AD-05032009- 03.pdf > > > > From the decision, it appears as if both the CPIO as > well as the IC has > > overlooked Section 3 of the RTI Act. I wonder, if > this section has been > > modified to allowed a Company be treated as a > Citizen? Will appreciate, if > > some of the noble RTI Users in this list provide me > with the necessary > > orders. > > > > Greetings for Holi > > > > Manoj Pai > > Ahmedabad > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From Chandigarh to Chennai - find friends all > over India. Go to http://in.promos. yahoo.com/ groups/city- > groups/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Check out the all-new Messenger 9.0! Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
