IOA Vs Veeresh Malik & oRS, WP(C) 876 of 2007, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
""The captioned matter was listed on 15.04.2009 before HMJ S.Ravinder Bhat of the Hon'ble High Court for arguments on behalf of the Union of India (Respondent No.2), we entered appearance on your behalf. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the Ld. Additional Solicitor General of India has to make submissions before the Hon'ble Court on behalf of the Union Government, however the learned ASG was in personal difficulty and as such he cannot appear before the Hon'ble Court. The Ld. Counsel accordingly prayed before the Hon'ble Court for one weeks time. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to adjourn the matter and has renotified the same on 21.04.2009 for arguments."" --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > Hi Veeresh (Malik), > > The relevant parts of your order are:- > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_28112006_3.pdf > > "5. I have considered the matter carefully. To determine, for the > purpose of RTI Act, whether an organization is a public authority or > not, we have to have recourse to Section 2(h) of the said Act, which > reads: > > `public authority' means any authority or body or institution > of self government established or constituted > > (a) by or under the Constitution > (b) by any other law made by Parliament > (c) by any other law made by State Legislatures; > (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government; > > and includes any > (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; > (ii) non governmental organization substantially financed; > directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. > > 6. In the present case, IOA is not one established or constituted by > or under the Constitution or by any Central or State Law or > notification. Admittedly, it is a society registered under the > Societies Registration Act, and has its own constitution, rules > and regulations. In other words, it is a non governmental > organization. Therefore, if at all RTI Act is applicable, it could be > only if IOA is substantially financed either directly or > indirectly by funds provided by the Government." > > The order was delivered by IC(P.Balasubraniam). The rest of her order > is a direct lift from the pleadings of the DISCOMs in my DERC matter > (you can inspect these at CIC office - occupies 2 cupboards) where > DISCOMS have used the "substantial financing" and "CAG" argument to > get themselves exempted from RTI ACT (High Court stay order of > 3.May.2006). In other words IC(PB) through your order is setting out > the space for lots of other private bodies (she now calls them NGOs - > ie. Indian Companies like Air Deccan and Idea all of a sudden become > NGOs) to wriggle out of RTI Act. IC(PB) has a vested interest in the > matter since her husband is supposedly member of Company Law Board. > > Veeresh, without disparaging your pioneering effort against IOA and > Societies in general, it is a far deeper game and corporate bodies > like DISCOMS, Idea, Deccan etc will use para 6 of IC(PB)'s > misconceived and fallacious order to get off the hook. > > Anyway, CIC is supposed to deliver their DISCOMs order today as per > High Court's order - let us see what IC(PB) and the OTHER ICs have to > say. Look forward to meeting you in the Courts on these ones. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], "Malik, Veeresh" <veereshmalik@> > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the compliments, but I do not know anybody in the Sports > Ministry!! Also, what is wholly falacious about the judgement, I have > been told this is a landmark decision on the "substantially financed" > aspect. > > > > The options, especially where a P/A has "taken" atleast 25 lakhs but > has gone bust or has a turnover of less than 125% of that amount in > any fiscal year, are good for the citizens, right? And if the 25 lakhs > is in land, then is it the value of land as taken at time of being > "substantially financed", or the value in books or the market value? > > > > Perception beats facts, and if IOA or BCCI want to evade a simple > query on expenditures, then it is their credibility at stake. Their > credibility with the International Organisations, for example, too. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: sroy1947 > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:01 PM > > Subject: [rti_india] IOA now P/A - BCCI next ? Maharashtra > politicos in turmoil > > > > > > Now that Veeresh Malik has got the CIC to declare that IOA is a P/A > > with a little inside help from the Sports Ministry, some "Madhukar > > Gupta" is the AA ;-) is it turn of BCCI next? Infighting between > > Public/Private partners before all the moolah in COmmonWealth Games is > > divvied up.. > > > > If my DISCOMs precedent is anything to go by, IOA and/or BCCI are sure > > to appeal this decision in some High Court. > > > > Here is the link to the CIC order:- > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_28112006_3.pdf > > > > Once again CIC has dredged up their wholly fallacious "substantially > > financed" argument whilst defining IOA to be an "NGO". All I can say > > is that IOA had competent counsel who drafted their pleadings and > > their counsel knows more RTI ACT than our Hon'ble Commissioners. > > > > Anyway for those interested in a short summary here is what ToI > reports:- > > > > "Explain games expense: CIC > > Himanshi Dhawan > > [ 28 Nov, 2006 TIMES NEWS NETWORK ] > > > > NEW DELHI: Overruling the Indian Olympic Association's plea that it > > was not governed by the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central > > Information Commission (CIC) has directed the sports body to provide > > information on the expenses incurred at the Melbourne Commonwealth > > Games'closing ceremony in April. > > > > The association and Delhi government had come under severe flak over > > the ceremony when it became public that the two organisations had > > spent more on roping in celebrities like Aishwarya Rai than on > > sportspersons. > > > > Appellant Veeresh Malik had approached the IOA in April seeking > > details about the public information officers and the appellate > > authorities in the IOA. He had asked for audited accounts between > > 2004-2006 and particulars of expenses incurred by IOA for the > > Melbourne Games. > > > > When he did not get any response, Malik approached the CIC. During the > > hearing, the IOA claimed that since it was not established by an Act > > of Parliament or any government notification, it could not be > > described as a public authority. > > > > IOA was, in fact, established as a society under the Societies > > Registration Act and is an autonomous body under the supervision of > > the International Olympic Committee. > > > > The nodal ministry, ministry of sports and youth affairs, however, > > revealed that Central and state government had given IOA Rs 320 lakh > > of the association's total budget of Rs 396 lakh. The CAG had also > > audited its accounts. > > > > Information commissioner Padma Balasubramanian noted that since the > > IOA was "substantially funded"by the government and since it > > "discharges public functions... that it is the nodal agency though > > which alone citizens could participate in international sports, it > > should have no hesitation in keeping its functions transparent". > > > > The CIC held that "being a public authority in terms of RTI, does > > not... in any way compromise its position or functioning in relation > > to the Olympic Charter". > > > > The Central Information Commission has asked Indian Olympic > > Association to provide the required information and designate > > information officers. The sports ministry has been asked to ensure > > compliance." > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
