ORDER 1. The present complaint case has been filed by Shri Munish Kumar Seth against the PIO/Registrar, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (University) for non-furnishing of the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. To fully appreciate the background of this case, facts may be recapitulated. The present complaint –Shri Munish Kumar Seth had originally moved three applications to the PIO/Director, Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (CMC) seeking some personal information in respect of an employee namely Shri Ashwani Sehgal, Steno in the Department of Ophthalmology. Specifically, the following queries were asked:- (i) Certified copy of Attendance Register in respect ofSh. Ashwani Sehgal, Steno, Eye Hospital, CMC Ludhiana for the dates 31.01.2007, 26.02.2007, 02.04.2007, 04.07.2007 & 06.02.2010. (ii) Copy of joining report of Ashwani Sehgal in the office of CMC, Ludhiana. (iii) Detail of monthly salary of Ashwani Sehgal. (iv) Whether his post is pensionable or not? His request for information was denied by CMC on the ground that it is not a public authority within the meaning of Act ibid. Aggrieved, the information-seeker had approached the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act and his complaint was listed as CC-454/2011. During the hearing of the case before the Commission, CMC reiterated its stand that it is a private registered society and does not receive any financial assistance from Government. Accepting this plea of the respondent, complaint case No.CC-454/2011 was closed. However, as the information-seeker had submitted that CMC is affiliated to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, it was ordered the University may procure the information from the respondent CMC, if it has the requist powers under its statute. 3. Based on these observation in the order dated 31.3.2011 in CC-454/2011, the information-seeker Shri Munish Kumar Seth moved a fresh application dated 9.4.2011 to the PIO/Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot seeking the very information which he had earlier sought from CMC. The University wrote a letter bearing No.10-FUHC(RTI)-40/11/9460-61 dated 25.4.2011to CMC that “University is a public authority and CMC though a private body is under access being affiliate with this University as such you are bound to provide information so you are again requested to send the requisite information up to 2.5.2011 by return post.” The CMC however did not furnish the requested information to the University. Consequently the University also did not provide the information. Consequently the University also did not provide the information. Aggrieved, the information-seeker has once again moved the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act, impleading PIO/Registrar Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot as a respondent. His complaint has been listed as CC-1860/2011 and is the subject matter of the present proceedings. 4. The PIO of the University had informed the information-seeker vide a letter dated 14.6.2011 that CMC authorities have declined to give information. It was conveyed that some litigation is pending between the information-seeker and Shri Ashwani Sehgal, Steno in the Ophthalmology Department in the Court of Civil Judge, Dhuri. The third party, Shri Ashwani Sehgal had objected to the disclosure of information, as no public interest is involved. It was further conveyed by the University that they have legally examined the powers of the University to procure the information under Section 2(f) read with Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the University is of the opinion that it does not enjoy statutory powers under the Baba Farid University Act, to procure this kind of information from CMC. Hence, provisions of Section 2(f) of the Act are not attracted to the facts of the case. Section 2(f) is reproduced below:- (f ) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; (emphasis provided).” The information could be accessed from the respondent-CMC only if in the statute of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, a specific power had been conferred on it to seek such information. 5. In the meantime, however, Shri Munish Kumar Seth, the complainant, moved a fresh application in the present case, CC-1860/2011 dated 4.1.2012. It was stated that he has found evidences to prove that CMC, though a private body registered under the Charitable Trusts Act, falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act,2005 and it is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act ibid. It was stated that he has found evidences to prove that CMC, though a private body registered under the Charitable Trusts Act, falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act,2005 and it is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act ibid. The complainant specifically relied on the decision of this Commission in CC-702/2011 (Sardavinder Goel vs. PIO/Guru Gobind Singh College of Engineering, Talwandi Sabo) and the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ravneet Kaur vs. CMC Ludhiana. He pleaded that the respondent-CMC is a public authority, because of the following reasons:- (i) Large number of nominees of the Government and public bodies are on the governing body of CMC and therefore CMC is controlled by the Government within the meaning of Section 2(h) (d) (i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was pleaded that Director Research and Medical Education, Government of Punjab or his nominee, Director Family Welfare and Health Services, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh or his nominee, Director General of Health Services, Government of India or his nominee and Nursing Adviser, Government of India or his nominee are on the Governing Body of the College. The Government, therefore, virtually controls the management of the College through its representative and as such, it is a public authority. (ii) CMC has been granted exemption from payment of house tax by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana as it is a charitable trust. The complainant produced a photocopy of letter of Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana has been stated that CMC is not paying house tax, as it is exempt from such payment being a charitable trust. (iii) That CMC, Ludhiana is affiliated to Baba Farid University Of Health Sciences under Section 48 of the University Act and has been recognized by the Medical Council of India and the University Grants Commission. It was submitted that affiliation and recognition by the University and Medical Council of India empowers these public authorities to regulate the functioning of CMC, Ludhiana and therefore, they exercises due and adequate control within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d) (i) of the Act. Therefore, CMC is a public authority. (iv) That the CMC is taking benefits under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, CMC is a public authority. (iv) That the CMC is taking benefits under the Income Tax Act. (v) Lastly, it was submitted by the complainant that CMC is a Minority Institution governed under the Minority Education Act, 2004 and it gets grants from Central Government as per Chapter 5 of Finance Accounts and Audit of Minority Education Act, 2004. 6. Considering the written representation and oral submissions of the complainant, the Commission decided on 4.1.2012 to issue a notice to the Principal, CMC College and Hospital, Ludhiana, impleading it as a party to the present complaint proceedings, calling upon it to file a reply as to why CMC should not be treated as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 7. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sehgal, the third party, in respect of whom the information is being sought by the complainant-Munish Kumar Seth also made an appearance and filed a written submission stating that Munish Kumar Seth is his brother-in-law and that a number civil litigation / case are pending between them in various courts. It was pleaded that the complainant is seeking information merely to harass him and that information is personal in nature and no public interest is involved. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sehgal has given number of instances in his written submissions pleading that he is being harassed by the information-seeker. 8. The CMC also appeared in the case through its counsel, filed a written reply and made oral arguments. These may be summed up as below:- (i) That the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and clear intent and that he is misusing the Right to Information Act, 2005. He had already filed a complaint against CMC College and Hospital, Ludhiana, which was closed on merits, after hearing the parties. At this stage, the issue cannot be reopened and that reopening would amount to a review of the earlier order in No.CC-454/2011 and that the Commission has no authority to review its own orders. (ii) The information being sought by the complainant is purely personal information of a third party namely, Ashwani Kumar Sehgal and he vide his letter dated 27.4.2011 had requested that no information regarding service record be given to Munish Kumar Seth as the request is motivated by personal enmity. The complainant-Munish Kumar Seth is involved in a civil litigation with the third party- Ashwani Kumar Sehgal. The complainant-Munish Kumar Seth is involved in a civil litigation with the third party- Ashwani Kumar Sehgal. No public interest is involved in the disclosure of the information and it is exempt under the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (iii) The CMC is a purely private unaided institution with charitable status. It is not getting any financial support from the Minority Commission, University Grants Commission or from the Government. As a minority institution, it has a right under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India to administer its institutions. (iv) The CMC is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Reliance was placed on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2011(4) Latest Judicial Report-12, decided on 4.8.2010. It was further pleaded that Ravneet Kaur vs. CMC was not a case under the RTI Act and hence the ratio of that case is not application to the facts of the present case. 9. We have heard the parties, including Shri Ashwani Kumar Sehgal and gone through the record. Before proceeding to consider the factual position qua the respondent CMC, Ludhiana, a recall of the relevant provisions of law would be imperative. Section 2 (h) of the Act defines “Public Authority”. Section 2 (h) reads: “Public authority means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted- (a) By or under the Constitution; (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 any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by appropriate government;” Admittedly, CMC Ludhiana is a private institution established, registered as a trust and run by Christian community. It has not been constituted by or under the Constitution of India, or by any law made by Parliament or by State Legislature, nor has it been set up by a government notification or order. Therefore, it is not a public authority within the meaning of sub-clause (a), (b), (c) and the first part of sub-clause (d) of Section 2 (h) of the Act. Therefore, it is not a public authority within the meaning of sub-clause (a), (b), (c) and the first part of sub-clause (d) of Section 2 (h) of the Act. The information seeker, however, has pleaded that CMC is a public authority under Section 2 (h) (d) (i) and (ii) because it is a body “controlled” by appropriate government and secondly because it is a non-government organization “substantially financed” directly or indirectly by funds provided by governments. The words “controlled” and “substantially “financed” “directly or “indirectly” have not been defined in the RTI Act. In S.Samuel Vs Union of India, ( AIR 2004 SC 218 at 223) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when an Act does not contain a definition of a word, it is permissible to see its meaning in dictionary, though its meaning must be seen in the context in which the word has been used. Besides, the interpretation of these words by any constitutional courts, if such decisions are available, would be binding. 10. First, let us see if the CMC would fall within the ambit of Section 2 (h) (d) (ii) i.e. a non-government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by appropriate government. A private organization, if it receives financial benefit from state exchequer, it partakes a share of public funds. The objective of bringing such private organizations within the ambit of transparency law is that those who benefit from state at the cost of tax payer should be open to public gaze and subjected to transparency. This provision is in keeping with the objectives and spirit of the RTI Act, which aims to provide for setting out a practical regime of right to information to promote transparency. The Kerala High Court in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Vs Union of India and others (2009 (3) Civil Court Cases 273 Kerala), while considering the provisions of sub-clause (d) (ii) of Section 2 (h) observed that, “Such a spectrum of substantial wisdom essentially advises that the provision under consideration has to be looked into from the angle of the purpose of the legislation in hand and the object sought to be achieved thereby, that is, with a purposive approach. What is intended is the protection of the larger public interest as also private interest. The fundamental purpose is to provide transparency, to contain corruption and to promote accountability. What is intended is the protection of the larger public interest as also private interest. The fundamental purpose is to provide transparency, to contain corruption and to promote accountability. Taken in this context, funds which the government deals with are public funds. They essentially belong to Sovereign, “We the People”. The collective national interest of the citizenry is always against pilferage of national wealth. This includes the need to ensure complete protection of public funds” (Para 27). 11. How much of financial benefit would amount to “substantially financed”? The word substantial is defined in dictionary as ‘considerable or ample amount, quantity size etc. It is something tangible. The antonyms of the word “substantial” are; inconsequential, insignificant, little, trivial, or negligible. Kerala High Court in the above quoted case of Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Vs Union of India and others (2009 (3) Civil Court Cases 273 Kerala), elucidated that the word ‘substantial’ has to be understood in contradiction to the word ‘trivial’. It was held that where the funding is not trivial to be ignored as pittance, the same would be substantial funding because it comes from public funds. It held (Para 27) that, “Hence, whatever benefit flows to the societies in the form of share capital or subsidy, or any other aid including provision for writing off bad debts, as also exemptions granted to it from different fiscal provisions for fee, duty, tax etc amount to substantial finance by funds provided by the appropriate government, for the purposes of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act” {Emphasis provided}. The words, ‘substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by appropriate government’ are wide enough to bring within its sweep not only direct fund outflow from state exchequer, but also indirect monetary benefit which may have been facilitated by governmental action. We may again rely on the decision in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Vs Union of India and others wherein the Kerala High has held that the essence of the act of ‘providing’ is making available of what is required to be provided. We may again rely on the decision in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Vs Union of India and others wherein the Kerala High has held that the essence of the act of ‘providing’ is making available of what is required to be provided. In this view of the matter, “funds provided by the appropriate government” is not necessarily providing funds from what belongs to the appropriate government either exclusively or otherwise, but also those provisions which come through the machinery of the appropriate government, including by allocation of provision of funds with either the concurrence or clearance of the appropriate government” The word ‘funds’ occurring in sub-clause (d) of Section 2 (h) have to be interpreted to include not only a direct cash outflow from government to non-government organization, but also indirect ‘funds’ such as a financial concession or benefit or subsidy or remission of what was otherwise due to government under any law or levy. Going by the dictionary meaning of the word ‘fund’, it includes not only money received or collected but also money saved. The ‘Cambridge Dictionary online’ defines the word fund as: a sum of money saved, collected or provided for a particular purpose; money needed or available to spend on something; a lot of something. Therefore, if a private organization saves money by avoiding payment of what was otherwise due from it to government under any law, rule or regulation, it would amount to a financial benefit to that organization. 12. So viewed, we find that the CMC, Ludhiana is drawing two fold financial privilege, facilitated by state. It has been exempted from the house tax. The complainant has placed on record a copy of letter No. 106/ 2 AD dated 18.11.11 of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. It is clearly stated in the letter of the Corporation that as per record, CMC is not paying any house tax as it has been exempted from it, as a Charitable Trust. It has also been admitted that the CMC College Hospital is a society registered under Section 12 (a) of the Income Tax Act and has been granted exemption under Section 80 (g) of the said Act.The relief granted under Section 80 (g) of the Income Tax may be a tax relief to the donor, but the fact remains that because of this statutory enablement, financial benefits accrue to CMC. Therefore, such benefit must be construed to fall within the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. The Allahabad High Court in Dhara Singh Girls High School Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 352 (Allahabad), held that wherever there is an iota of nexus regarding control and finance of public authority over the activities of the private body or institution or an organization etc., the same would fall within the provisions of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. This decision has been followed in number of subsequent decisions of the same court and one may refer to the decision of High Court in Committee of Management Shanti Niketan Inter College through its Manager and Shyam Lal Gupta Vs State of UP., ( AIR 2009 All 7 ) and in The Committee of Management, Azad Memorial Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs State of UP, (MANU/UP/0493/2008). The benefits drawn by the CMC, Ludhiana are certainly not trivial or inconsequential and there is more than an iota of nexus between the benefit received by it and the act of its facilitation by government. For this reason, CMC, Ludhiana must be held to be a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the Act. 13. There is an additional ground to hold that CMC is a public authority. The information seeker has brought on record that the governing body of 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 the Nursing Advisor, government of India. These four government nominees directly participate in the management and running of the institute. It is true that mere recognition of the CMC College by Medical Council of India or it 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 government has appointed four representatives on the governing body of CMC, lends the mechanism a colour of “controlled” within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. Moreover, the powers and authority of these nominee directors is not limited to merely enforcing regulations of the MCI or the University. Moreover, the powers and authority of these nominee directors is not limited to merely enforcing regulations of the MCI or the University. They are as good members of the managing committee as 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 control over the affairs of the college. 14. Reliance of the information seeker on Ravneet Kaur Vs Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, AIR 1998 (1), may not help him as the judgment was given in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prior to the coming into being of the RTI Act, 2005. This Commission is bound by the statutory provisions of RTI Act, being a creature of the Act and enjoys no plenary powers. The Indian transparency law extends to government, to the bodies established by government and to private organizations only if they have been financial benefitted from state exchequer. It is based on the principle of “what is the source of origin of the institution’ and ‘whether government funds flow to it”. It is not based on the principle of “nature of functions performed” by an organization, public or private. A private body may be discharging public functions, but it would still not come within the ambit of RTI Act, unless government controls it or it receives substantial funding form it. The concept of ‘Public Authority’ in the RTI Act is not structured on the principle of ‘nature of functions’ discharged by a body or the kind of powers it exercises. A private body may be discharging functions and duties of a public nature or welfare, but that alone is not a germane ground to bring it under the transparency law. 15. The CMC also submitted that the Commission had held in CC-454 of 2011 that it is not covered under the RTI Act. It was argued that the Commission has no power to review its own orders. CC-454 of 2011 was a decision of a single bench of this Commission. It is true that CC-454/2011 was closed by the single Bench of the Commission holding that, “The respondent is a registered society and there is no prima facie evidence to prove that it is receiving financial assistance from the state”. CC –454/2011 was closed and with that, the matter ended. It is true that CC-454/2011 was closed by the single Bench of the Commission holding that, “The respondent is a registered society and there is no prima facie evidence to prove that it is receiving financial assistance from the state”. CC –454/2011 was closed and with that, the matter ended. That case is not being re-opened now and therefore the question of its review does not arise. The matter has come up before the Commission again through another independent case, CC-1860/11, and this case has to be decided on its own merits, as per the evidence on record. If it results in reversal of the earlier decision of single bench in CC-454/11, be that it. The RTI Act does not impose an embargo on a citizen approaching the Commission afresh, if information has not been provided to him. The present case is a fresh cause of action and the DB is to pronounce decision on the facts of the case before it. The DB is not constrained by any earlier decision given in another case by a single Bench. If facts now placed before the DB lead to a different conclusion, the latest decision shall prevail. It would not amount to review of CC-454/11, but overruling of the earlier decision of the single bench. 16. The CMC has also referred to its minority character. Educational institutions run by minorities enjoy a special status under the Constitution of India and the right is inviolable, to be respected by all. In pluralistic democracies, such rights are iconic landmarks. However, transparency does not take away the right of minorities to manage their affairs, nor does minority status mean a right to operate behind the curtain or hushed management of its affairs. Openness and democracy are integral to each other, but neither is nocuous to minority rights. 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. 17. Should then, the Commission allow the information asked by the petitioner? It has come on record that there is prolonged civil litigation between the third party and the information seeker. They are related to each other. The petitioner is seeking information for purely personal purposes, to build his case before the civil court. 17. Should then, the Commission allow the information asked by the petitioner? It has come on record that there is prolonged civil litigation between the third party and the information seeker. They are related to each other. The petitioner is seeking information for purely personal purposes, to build his case before the civil court. No public purpose or public interest has been pleaded, what to say established, in disclosure of the information. The Patna High Court in Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi Vs. The State Information Commission held that:- “8.It is equally true that merely because the information relates to a public official, it cannot be assumed in all circumstances that it would have a public interest element. Information sought to serve a personal feud in private litigations may not be maintained in the name of public interest. In case of Vijay Prakash Vs Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 Del 7 , the Delhi High Court observed that disclosure of service record of public servant sought by her husband, so as to establish his case in matrimonial suit is impermissible, as such disclosure does not involve public interest. The husband, Vija Prakash, had sought information regarding the service records of his wife for the purposes of using the same in a divorce proceeding. Disallowing the prayer of the Petitioner and affirming the order of the Information Commissions, the learned Single Judge observed that information sought for was not in public interest and has rightly been refused by the Information Commissions”. (Para 8). The High Court of Gujarat has taken the view that the profile and credentials of a person seeking third party information could be looked into, while deciding as to whether or not to disclose third party information under Section 11 (3). In The High Court of Gujarat by and through B.J. Dhandha Vs State Chief Information Commissioner and Anr., AIR 2008 Gujarat 37: (2008) 1 ID 409, (Special Civil Application No. 23103 of 2007 decided on 3.10.2007), the Hon’ble High Court approvingly relied on the observations in Reliance Industries Limited Vs. In The High Court of Gujarat by and through B.J. Dhandha Vs State Chief Information Commissioner and Anr., AIR 2008 Gujarat 37: (2008) 1 ID 409, (Special Civil Application No. 23103 of 2007 decided on 3.10.2007), the Hon’ble High Court approvingly relied on the observations in Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat State Information Commission and Ors (AIR 2007 Gujarat 203), where in the Gujarat High Court had held that: “In considering whether the public interest is disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party, the public information Officer will have to consider the following: (i) The objection raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for. (ii) Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or to wreck vendetta against the third party. In deciding that the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into. If the profile of the person seeking information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited. (iii) The Public Information Officer, while dealing with the information relating to or supplied by the third party, has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in the hands of a busy body to settle a personal score” It is on record that the present complainant and the third party have strained relations. The complainant has been moving against the third party in various forums. The information seeker is seeking third party personal information not for any public purpose but for private civil litigation. His request deserves to be rejected. 18. Even otherwise, the scope of Section 18 under which this Commission has been approached by the complainant is limited to see if information has been denied in contravention of the law and if so, to punish the PIO by levy of penalty under Section 20. For seeking information, the complainant ought to have moved the Commission under Section 19 of the Act. ORDER: The CMC, Ludhiana is hereby declared to be a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. For seeking information, the complainant ought to have moved the Commission under Section 19 of the Act. 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. ---------0.B.S.0------------