[RTI INDIA] Re: " section 2(h)" substantial , IC want it to be specified

Dear Mohit

The trouble people who do "cherry picking" from various
judgments is that they get stunned when the other side
(and the judge) start cherry picking AGAINST them.

Let me also say that you are comparing apples to oranges. For
eg. Sanskriti School is not comparable with say a "Little Hearts
Convent for Boys".

Finally, if we consider a case of a private school on private land
bought at market rate with 9 funding from Govt, you (and Col Kurup)
will continue to insist that Govt "controls" this school because there
are 2 directors on its board of trustees.

You are all living under a delusion, read judgments like "T.M.Pai
foundation" (11 SC judges), Islamic Acamdey (9 judges) to know
where you are wrong. Finally read PoornaPraja School decision
carefully (all the issues you are raising are dealt with) , you have
nothing to lose and everything to gain if you insist on 2F (unless
of course you are a 'harami').

Sarbajit

On Oct 6, 11:21 am, Mohit Goel <mr_moh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Karira
>
> thanks for below. I have read all those HC rulings and even quoted in my written
> argument but IC wants me to derive value of subsidy which is really confusing
> and could be counter productive as IC may say that figure which i have arrived
> on apprx amount can be termed a meager where as High court rullings specially
> in
> 1. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Indian Olympic Association,
> Sanskriti School v. Veeresh Malik [judgment dated 7th January 2010 , court
> observed
> This court therefore, concludes that what amounts to "substantial" financing
> cannot be straight-jacketed into rigid formulae, of universal application. Of
> necessity, each case would have to be examined on its own facts. That the
> percentage of funding is not "majority" financing, or that the body is an
> impermanent one, are not material. Equally, that the institution or organization
> is not controlled, and is autonomous is irrelevant; indeed, the concept of non-
> government organization means that it is independent of any manner of government
> control in its establishment, or management. That the organization does not
> perform or pre-dominantly perform "public" duties too, may not be material, as
> long as the object for funding is achieving a felt need of a section of the
> public, or to secure larger societal goals. To the extent of such funding,
> indeed, the organization may be a tool, or vehicle for the executive governments
> policy fulfillment plan."
>
> please advise what course of action shall i follow
>
> regards
> mohit
>
> ________________________________
> From: C J Karira <cjkar...@gmail.com>
> To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 6 October, 2010 11:41:05 AM
> Subject: RE: [RTI INDIA] Re: " section 2(h)" substantial , IC want it to be
> specified
>
> Just keeping the relevant parts of the earlier email and deleting
> the rest.
>
> Subsidies, Tax Conscessions, Tax exemptions, etc. do
> constitute "indirect" financing and are covered under
> 2(h)(d)(ii):
>
> d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
> Government, and includes any—
> 1 body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
> 2 non-Government organization substantially financed,
> directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
> Government;
>
> This has already been interpreted by various HC's , including
> the Kerala HC, Madras HC ( Madurai Bench) and Punjab & Haryana HC
>
> The other contention, regarding 2(f) should only be used
> by the applicant after carefully reading various powers of the DEO
> under other Acts or Laws currently in force.
>
> C J Karira
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rti_india@googlegroups.com [mailto:rti_india@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
>
> Of sroy1947
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:01 AM
> To: RTI India : Right to Information, CIC
> Subject: [RTI INDIA ] Re: " section 2(h)" substantial , IC want it to be
> specified
>
> > 2) If NO, then you must show that school is a "non-governmental
> > organisation"
> > substantially financed, owned or controlled by appropriate Govt. The
> > evidences
> > you are putting up "land at Rs 10", "2 govt nominees" etc do not fall
> > under these
> > provisos to 2.h.d. The first is a SUBSIDY (as distinguished from
> > "finance").
> > The second one is meaningless. because as per the DSEAR there is a
> > separation
> > between the Society and the school's management.
>
> > Sarbajit.