AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L a n d Area
(Acres)","D a t e of
Execution","D a t e of
Operation",Purpose,Total Payment,Annual Rent( %)
0.8325,03.05.1985,28.11.1983,"Essential staff
quarters","Rs. 4,99,500/-",2.5
4.7175,03.05.1985,28.11.1983,Hospital,"Rs.47,175/-",5
0.64,03.05.1985,31.05.1979,"Essential staff
quarters","Rs.64,000/-",2.5
3.61,03.05.1985,31.05.1979,Hospital,Rs.18050/-,5
1.23,24.07.2000,14.03.1996,"Dharamshala &
Nursing School",Rs.9840000/-,2.5
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;,,,,,
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;,,,,,
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes anyâ€"",,,,,
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;",,,,,
(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.â€",,,,,
The aforesaid expression was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors v. State of,,,,,
Kerala & Ors: (2013) 16 SCC 82. The Court explained that the use of the words “means†and “includes†in the definition of the term,,,,,
“public authority†clearly indicates that the categories listed therein are exhaustive. The Court also observed Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act referred,,,,,
to essentially six categories. The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:-,,,,,
“31. Section 2(h) exhausts the categories mentioned therein. The former part of 2(h) deals with:,,,,,
(1) an authority or body or institution of self-government established by or under the Constitution,",,,,,
(2) an authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any other law made by the Parliament,",,,,,
(3) an authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any other law made by the State legislature, and",,,,,
(4) an authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government.,,,,,
Societies, with which we are concerned, admittedly, do not fall in the above mentioned categories, because none of them is either a body or",,,,,
institution of self-government, established or constituted under the Constitution, by law made by the Parliament, by law made by the State Legislature",,,,,
or by way of a notification issued or made by the appropriate government. Let us now examine whether they fall in the later part of Section 2(h) of,,,,,
the Act, which embraces within its fold:",,,,,
(5) a body owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government,",,,,,
(6) non-governmental organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government.â€,,,,,
In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner does not fall in the categories under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, the",,,,,
only question that arises is whether the petitioner can be held to be ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) or 2(h)(d)(ii) of the,,,,,
RTI Act. In other words, whether the petitioner is a body owned controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the",,,,,
appropriate government or is a Non-Government Organization (NGO) substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate",,,,,
government.,,,,,
Concededly, there is no direct finance that is provided by the Government. According to CIC, the appropriate government in relation to the",,,,,
petitioner could be the Government of NCT of Delhi and more importantly the DDA. This conclusion is based principally on the ground that the land,,,,,
was allotted to the petitioner on concessional rates and the petitioner is paying a rental value which is lower than the market rate. The CIC has,,,,,
observed as under:-,,,,,
“This means, the society is enjoying to have its entire hospital on the land paying the rental value as per the rates of value fixed up long ago, which",,,,,
amounts to substantial funding indirectly. Whether it is called 'incentive' or 'subsidy'-or 'concession', to that extent of low value, compared, to market",,,,,
rate, the respondent authority has been indirectly financed which is ‘substantial’â€",,,,,
This Court is unable to subscribe to the above view. In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court had further",,,,,
explained that mere providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges cannot be said to be providing funding to the substantial extent.",,,,,
The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are extracted below:-,,,,,
“Merely providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges, etc. as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the",,,,,
record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to",,,,,
exist.â€,,,,,
Concededly, the petitioner was not given any special grant or any special treatment by allotment of land. The land was leased to the petitioner as",,,,,
per the prevalent policy of the Government at the material time. Leasing of land for the purposes of education and health care to Non-Governmental,,,,,
Organizations for establishing educational institutes and health care facilities at a rate lower than what is charged for commercial establishments,",,,,,
cannot be considered as financing those institutions. The allocation of the resource of land for various purposes and charging appropriate rate for the,,,,,
same does not mean that the particular lessees that acquire leasehold interest in land are financed by the Government. The object of leasing land at,,,,,
lower rates is to ensure the availability of health services at lower rates to the public. The incentive, if at all, is directed towards ensuring availability of",,,,,
healthcare and education to public at affordable rates and not to finance the concerned entity.,,,,,
The expression “substantial finances†would take in its fold bodies which would struggle to exist without such finances and survive on the,,,,,
resources provided by the Government. In the present case, there is no material which would indicate that the petitioner would be unable to survive if",,,,,
the lease rentals were increased.,,,,,
The CIC had also noted that the petitioner was required to provide free beds to the extent of 25% of the total beds available and further free OPD,,,,,
to poor/indigent patients. However, the CIC failed to appreciate that such demands were made on the petitioner as a condition of lease. The rationale",,,,,
of insisting on free services is clearly to extract due value for allocation of land (including at concessional rates). This clearly indicates that the,,,,,
intention of the DDA was not to finance the petitioner but to ensure that affordable health care is available to the public. As stated above, there is no",,,,,
material to indicate that non availability of land at concessional rates would put the petitioner’s survival in peril. Cost of inputs for providing,,,,,
services is a pass through costs and there is no material to establish that the same is not the case with the petitioner.,,,,,
In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court had explained the meaning of the expression “a body ownedâ€. The",,,,,
relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:-,,,,,
“35. A body owned by the appropriate Government clearly falls under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. A body owned, means to have a good",,,,,
legal title to it having the ultimate control over the affairs of that body, ownership takes in its fold control, finance, etc. Further discussion of this",,,,,
concept is unnecessary because, admittedly, the societies in question are not owned by the appropriate Government.â€",,,,,
In the facts of the present case, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner is a body owned by the Government.",,,,,
This Court is unable to accept the view that merely because the land on which the petitioner is running a hospital was allotted by the DDA at,,,,,
concessional rates, the same must be construed as financed by the Central/State Government. And, as there is no other material to indicate that the",,,,,
petitioner was funded by Central Government or any State Government.,,,,,
The CIC’s conclusion that the petitioner has been substantially funded by an appropriate government and is thus a ‘public authority’,,,,,
cannot be sustained.,,,,,
For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. All the pending applications are also disposed of. The",,,,,
parties are left to bear their own costs. However, a sum of ₹10,000/- paid to respondent no.2 is not required to be refunded.",,,,,