Christian Medical College and Hospital (CMC), Ludhiana is a Public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act

[sabharwal786]

ORDER:

The CMC, Ludhiana is hereby declared to be a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. It is further directed to appoint a PIO and henceforth comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

However, it is not a fit case to impose any penalty. The CMC had a reasonable cause to deny information in the light of decision in CC-454/11. Complicated issues of law were involved and denial of information by the respondent public authority was not unreasonable, under the circumstances. The complaint case is closed.

[sabharwal786]

Sponsorer

CMC public authority: Panel
Orders appointment of information officer & compliance with RTI Act

As reported by Puneet Pal Singh Gill in The Tribune on dated 05 May 2012
Source : The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories

In a landmark decision, the State Information Commission (SIC), has declared Christian Medical College (CMC), Ludhiana, a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The double bench of Chief Information Commissioner RI Singh and State Information Commissioner Surinder Awasthi today issued a 14-page orderand directed the CMC to appoint a public information officer (PIO) and comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.

Duringt he proceedings of a case filed by Munish Kumar Seth of Dhuri (Sangrur), the SIC observed that the CMC was drawing two-fold financial privilege from the state.

“It has been exempted from house tax. The complainant has placed on record a copy of letter dated November 18, 2011, of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. It is clearly stated in the letter that as per the record, the CMC is not payingany house tax as it is a charitable trust,” the SIC observed.

It was further observed that the CMCH was a society registered under Section 12(a) of the Income Tax Act and had been granted exemption under Section 80 (g) of the Act. “The relief granted under Section 80 (g) may be a tax relief to the donor, but the fact remains that because of this statutory enablement,financial benefits accrue to the CMC. Therefore, such a benefit must beconstrued to fall within the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act,” readthe order.

“The benefits drawn by the CMC are certainly not trivial or inconsequential andthere is more than an iota of nexus between the benefit received by it and theact of its facilitation by the government. For this reason, the CMC must beheld to be a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the Act.”

The SIC also said: “The information-seeker has brought on record that the governing body of the CMC includes government nominees, namely Director Research and Medical Education, Government of Punjab, Director Health Services, Government of Punjab, Director-General Health Services, Government of India and Nursing Adviser, Government of India. These four government nominees directly participate in the management and running of the institute. Mere recognition ofthe CMC by the Medical Council of India or its affiliation to Baba Farid University would not amount to ‘controlled’ within the meaning of Section 2 (h)(d) (i). However, the fact that these regulatory bodies have laid down elaborate guidelines and parameters and the government has appointed four representatives on the governing body of the CMC, lends the mechanism a colour of ‘controlled’ within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. Moreover, the powers and authorityof these nominee-directors is not limited to merely enforcing regulations ofthe MCI or the university. They are as good members of the managing committeeas anyone else and enjoy powers of decision-making as any other member does.They are party to the management process and to that extent exercise controlover the affairs of the college,” the order read.

The CMC pleaded that it was a purely private unaided institution with a charitablestatus. “It is not getting any financial support from the Minority Commission, University Grants Commission or from the government. As a minority institution, it has aright under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution to administer its institutions.”

To this, the SIC said: “Transparency does not take away the right of minorities to manage their affairs, nor does minority status mean a right to operate behindthe curtain or hushed management of its affairs. The argument that transparency law is not applicable to minority-run educational institutions has no merit. The law does not exempt an institution from disclosure of information on grounds of its minority status and such a standing in extraneous to the RTI Act.”