By IANS,
New Delhi: Upholding a Central Information Commission (CIC) order, the Delhi High Court has held that the Delhi Integrated Multi-Modal Transit System (DIMTS) is a public authority and comes under the ambit of the Right To Information Act (RTI).
Citizens have a right to obtain information about such bodies which have received substantial financing from the government, the court observed.
Justice Vipin Sanghi, hearing the plea filed by DIMTS challenging the CIC order, observed that the company has been “substantially financed” by the government and comes under the RTI Act.
DIMTS is joint venture between Delhi government and Infrastructure Development Finance Company Ltd (IDFC) and works in the field of urban transport and infrastructure development.
Justice Sanghi, in his judgment Friday upheld the March 2010 order of CIC, saying: “I am of the view that the petitioner is a public authority. I hold the petitioner company to be substantially financed, for the purpose of the Act.
“It is to be borne in mind that when a government substantially finances a body, it uses public money and as such the financing has to be in the larger interest of the public. It is for this reason that a citizen has a right to obtain information about such bodies, which have received substantial financing from the government,” Justice Sanghi opined.
“I find no infirmity with the decision of the CIC holding the petitioner company to be a public authority under the Act. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order,” Justice Sanghi said, dismissing two appeals filed by DIMTS against the CIC order.
The court further observed that merely because the petitioner company is not receiving financial aid or assistance in the form of debt from the government – the salaries and other expenses of the petitioner being paid out of the funds generated by its business – does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is not “substantially financed” by the government.
In the March 2010 order, the CIC had ordered that DIMTS was a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and had directed it to appoint a public information officer and First Appellate Authority before March 31, 2012 to provide information on people’s queries.
RTI applicants Rakesh Aggarwal and Sachin Sapra had sought certain information regarding affairs of DIMTS under the RTI Act from the public information officer at the chief minister’s office, but did not receive a reply.
Aggrieved by decision of the company of not supplying the information, Aggarwal and Sapra then moved the CIC, questioning the basis on which DIMTS did not come under the purview of the RTI Act.