RTI Corner

The appellant prayed before the CIC that the Unit Run CSD Canteen may be declared as a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent submitted that Unit Run Canteens (URCs) were established with the purpose of providing consumable stores to the Defence personnel at a price cheaper than the market as a welfare measure. They are run by the funds of the formation/unit which are Regimental funds created through contributions from the defence personnel as per statutory rules provided in service regulations. The Respondent categorically stated that URCs are in no way funded by the Government or from the Consolidated Fund of India. The URCs pay rent and allied charge at prescribed rates for utilisation of premises and other services. The URCs are managed through a Standard Operating Procedure formulated by the URC management Committee. The CIC observed that the URC is not a creature of statute. The URCs are run by Regimental Funds which has been held by the Courts to be non-public fund. The Government does not exercise any direct or indirect control over it. The three-fold test of Creation, Finance and Control of an organization as outlined in the definition clause of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act is not established.
Comments
In the case of R R Pillai, the Apex Court had held that URCs are purely private ventures and their employees are at no stretch of imagination employees of the Government or CSD. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the Central Government to provide canteen services to its employees. The profit generated from URCs are not credited to the consolidated fund but are distributed to the non-public funds which are used by the units for the welfare of the troops.
Citation: Shri Daya Shankar Shukla and others v. Ministry of Defence in F. No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000665 CIC/LS/A/2013/001914 CIC/RM/A/2013/001287 Date of Order : 25.05.2016, 15.03.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The services of the appellant along with two others were terminated from the Central University Jharkhand (CUJ) by its Second Executive Council vide Resolution dated 14.09.2013. This group of terminated employees of CUJ together with others had been making complaints to various authorities seeking to declare the constitution of 2nd Executive council as illegal. They had together filed around 450 RTI applications (online) and 400 appeals (online) under RTI Act, 2005. All these applications sought information on alleged corruption in the CUJ, Constitution of Second Executive Council (EC) of the CUJ, amendment to the statute relating to EC, fund release to the CUJ etc. The appellant informed the Commission that he had been reinstated and he did not have any complaint against the CUJ. He further stated that the CUJ authorities had taken proactive steps to provide him the information that he sought and requested the Commission to allow him to withdraw all his appeals listed to be heard on 20.04.2017. The CIC allowed him to withdraw the appeals.
Comments
The case highlights how the RTI Act has been used by an employee to get his job back. However, the CIC appears to have been (mis)used in the matter as the alleged corruption in CUJ remains under wrap. If the information sought was not exempt, shouldn’t the CIC asked for putting up all the information on the website?
Citation: Shri Kumar Pankaj Anand v. Ministry of Human Resource Development in CIC/SA/A/2015/901302/MP, Date of Decision: 08th June, 2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India