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

Dear Sir

thanks for your insight on the matter . I fully accept your viewpoint.

Even in the case of - Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs Ramesh Chander Bawa on
14 May, 2010, Honble High court also touch upon the same theory :
"The key words as far as the RTI Act is concerned are the opening words of
Section 2 which read: "unless the context otherwise requires". Therefore, the
interpretation of the words "public authority" has to be in the context that has
been laid out in the SOR, the preamble, the long W.P.(C) Nos. 6129/2007,
7787/2008 & 7770/2008 Page 19 of 47 title and other provisions of the RTI Act
itself. The question is not whether there is "deep" and "pervasive" control of
the bodies in question by the appropriate government, but whether there is the
absence of any "control" over such bodies by the appropriate government."

In my case Delhi school act has empowered Govt of delhi to regulate schools in
such a way the if Govt wants they can control all activities of private school,
even can take over their management etc. A school can only function if it is
recognised by Deptt of education and once its is recognised it has to abide by
all sections of Delhi school act which have deep & persuasive control on private
school.

I am not sure how IC will interpret the laws/ RTI in my case.

regards
Mohit

----- Original Message ----
From: Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 6 October, 2010 12:16:54 PM
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: " section 2(h)" substantial , IC want it to be
specified

It is good that this topic came up for discussion. We have been coming
across various intepretations and orders or even judgments on the
issue. Some how or other I could not agree fully with none of those
orders.

One may interpret Section 2(h) in anyway. The yardstick given in any
of these orders does not give the solution. I shall therefore start
it from the preamble of the Act which says " AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR
SETTING OUT THE PRACTICAL REMIME..ETC." The kepy word is practical
regime. Does those interpretations establish a practical regime ? The
recent orders of the Pubjab SIC, out of ignorance of the IC,a
General declaring the LIONS CLUB as a Public Authority serve as an
apt point to clarify the issue. The General is correct in a way that
once upon a time the Government has given the Punjab Lions Club some
land on subsidised rate etc. Whether it is subsidised or on market
value is not a point. It is sale. Once the purchaser paid the
consideration it ends there unless it was aconditional sale with a
contractual provision. This obviously may not be. To make the
discussion short, I will ask a simple qestion as to how will the SIC
or government of Punjab make the Lions Club abide by the orders.? What
can the SIC or government do if the Lions club just ignore the orders
of SIC ? SWEET NOTHING.

So, the yardstick should be whether government has any prctical
control over such organisation or not i.e, Is there any PRACTICAL
REGIME to excercise command and control over such organisation. If
does, it is public authority and if not that organisation is not
public authority.

That yardstick will apply in this case. Here there are some
contractual clause of putting two members as government rep etc who
can excercise command and ccontrol. So, it is a public authority in
every respect.

On 06/10/2010, C J Karira <cjkarira@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>