Cricket Country: New
Delhi: Tuesday, 14 April 2015.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) on Monday deferred the matter of bringing Delhi
and District Cricket Association (DDCA) under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act “sine die” in a split verdict with one of three Information Commissioners
ordered SFIO inquiry against the cricketing body. The Commission “refrained”
from passing an order as similar matter in separate cases are under stay at
Delhi High Court. However, the Commission said that once the superior courts
pronounce their decision the parties could approach it.
The majority
verdict, which will prevail, given by Information Commissioners Basant Seth and
Sharat Sabharwal both ex-bureaucrats came as relief to DDCA which was
contesting to be declared as Public Authority as it said it is not financed by
Government. The case relates to activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal who filed a
complaint with the CIC claiming that DDCA had not responded to his RTI
application seeking details of land and others assets of the cricketing body.
Former member of Indian Cricket team and BJP MP Kirti Azad also intervened in
the matter seeking declaration of DDCA as public authority under the RTI Act.
Information
Commissioner Sridhar Acahryulu differed with the majority decision and declared
that DDCA was an NGO getting substantial funding from the government which
brings it under the ambit of the RTI Act. He also directed the Serious Fraud
Investigation Office to conduct a thorough probe into all financial
irregularities of DDCA including the allegations made by various personalities.
Acharyulu
also told Land and Development Office (L and DO) to secure compliance of all
conditions in the lease deed including collection of charges and damages
running into crores of rupees as calculated by its department ignoring
pressures, if any.
Surprisingly,
Seth and Sabharwal agreed after analysis of balance sheets of DDCA that there
was profit of Rs 5.65 crores, Rs. 4.71 crores and loss of Rs. 65.87 lakhs in
the years 2011, 2012, 2013 respectively. “Given these figures and the licence
fee for land, as determined at market rate given by L and DO, it is clear that
the concession given by L and DO to DDCA is ‘material / of considerable value’
without which DDCA would struggle to exist,” they said.
But despite
agreeing that DDCA would not be able to exist without government concessions,
they took into considerations stay given by Delhi High Court in separate cases,
to defer the decision on declaring DDCA as Public Authority under RTI Act.
“…the Central and State Information Commissions, declaring certain entities as
public authorities under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, primarily on the basis
of allotment of land by the appropriate government at highly concessional
rates, have been either stayed or in one case set aside by High Courts.
“In the light
of the foregoing and in order to avoid multiple litigation, we would refrain
from passing an order at this stage. The matter is adjourned sine-die. It
would, however, be open to the parties to agitate the matter before the
Commission again after the superior courts have pronounced their decision,”
they said.
Meanwhile,
Acharyulu said in his dissent verdict that Agrawal discharged his burden
showing that ‘DDCA was substantially funded indirectly’ by the appropriate
government. “The documents provided and official websites maintained by the
concerned Government departments also proved that DDCA was indirectly and
substantially financed,” he said directing the cricketing body to follow
procedures given under the RTI Act for public authorities,” he said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
