Sharat Sabharwal DECISION
Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner
1. These files contain appeals filed by the above mentioned company in respect of its two RTI applications, both dated 29.4.2014, seeking certain information from the Respondents. The matter came up today. The Respondents were represented by Ms. Hemlata, CPIO, who was present at the NIC Studio, Bangalore. Advocate Pradeep Nayak was present at the NIC Studio, Bangalore to represent the Appellant company. He drew our attention to the vakalatnama dated 17.10.2014, submitted by the Appellant to the Commission along with the second appeal, in which M/s. Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff and Company were appointed as advocates to represent the Appellant in this case. In response to our query, Advocate Nayak stated that he was not from the above law firm. Since they were unable to attend the hearing at Bangalore, they had sent an e-mail, asking him to represent them. He was informed that he could not be allowed to make submissions on behalf of the Appellant Company in the absence of a proper authorization from them. In view of the foregoing, this matter is adjourned to be heard again through video-conferencing on 14th March 2016 at 2.20 p.m. The representative of the Appellant during the next hearing should carry a proper authorization from them for this purpose, a copy of which should be made available to the Commission before the hearing. The venue of video-conferencing for the Appellant and the Respondents shall be the same as during the hearing today.
2. We also note that the Respondents have sent us their written submissions vide their letter dated 22.1.2016. They are directed to forward a copy of these submissions by registered post to the Appellant Company, within five days of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
Hearing on 16.3.2016
3. The matter came up again today. The Appellant company was represented by Advocates Pradeep Nayak and Smaran Shetty, who hold a vakalatnama issued by the Company Secretary of the Appellant company. The Respondents were represented by Ms. Hemlata, CPIO and Shri M.S. Krishnan, Legal Officer, Antrix.
4. At the outset Advocate Pradeep Nayak confirmed having received a copy of the Respondent's written submissions 22.1.2016. We have also received, just before the hearing, the written submissions dated 14.3.2016 filed by the Appellant. The Respondents stated that a copy of the above submissions was made available to them a few minutes before the hearing at the NIC studio, Bangalore.
5. With reference to the written submissions of the Respondents, we asked Advocate Pradeep Nayak to comment on their submission that the information in these cases has been sought by a company viz., M/s. Devas Multi Media Pvt. Limited and not by a citizen. In this connection, the Respondents have also cited the Commission's decision No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002529/8989 dated 9.11.2015 in Mr. Vinod Sunder R. Company Secretary M/s. Devas Multi Media Pvt. Limited v. CPIO/Dy. Wireless Advisor, Department of Telecommunication. Advocate Nayak stated that the written submissions of the Appellant refer to certain decisions of the Commission (Annexure A, B, C and D), as per which the fact of an application having been filed on the letter-head of a company or by an office bearer of a company does not have an impact on the request for information under the RTI Act. He further submitted that in the case of the appeal covered by the Commission's decision dated 9.11.2015, mentioned above, the RTI application and the appeal to the FAA were signed by two different office bearers of the company. However, this is not the case with the appeals before the Commission now. Advocate Nayak also cited the Commission's decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/003523 dated 13.4.2012. On being asked whether Shri Vinod Sunder R., Company Secretary, who had signed the RTI application, submitted a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company to get the information on their behalf, Advocate Nayak stated that a copy of the resolution dated 11.2.2011 of Board of Directors was submitted as page No. 47 of the appeal filed to the Commission. This resolution reads as follows:--
"RESOLVED that in supersession of all earlier resolutions granting authority generally to Directors and Authorised Officers, any two of Dr. M.G. Chandrasekhar, Chairman, Mr. Ramachandran Viswanathan, Director, Mr. D. Venugopal, Chief Technology Officer, Mr. D. Nataraj, Director Business Development, Mr. Vinod Sunder R, Company Secretary, be and are hereby jointly authorized to file claims, suits, execution petitions, appeals, complaints, affidavits, applications, vakalatnamas and all other papers for and on behalf of the company and generally to do all acts, deeds, matters and things required to be done, in this regard.
Further RESOLVED that any of the foregoing authorized persons may delegate their authorities/powers hereunder to any person in India as they deem fit, including the authority to any single person to file claims, suits, execution petitions, appeals, complaints, affidavits, applications, vakalatnamas and all other papers for and on behalf of the Company."
6. On our pointing out that the resolution authorised any two of the persons mentioned therein to jointly file claims, suits, appeals etc., while the RTI application was signed only by Shri Vinod Sunder R., Advocate Nayak stated that the resolution further provides for delegation of powers by the persons concerned to any person in India, including any single person to file claims, suits and appeals etc. However, he would have to seek further instructions in this matter from the Appellant company.
7. This matter involves lengthy submissions made by both the parties. It is difficult to hold a hearing on it through video-conferencing, as was evident from the repeated snapping of the video link during today's hearing. Further, the written submissions of the Appellant company were made available to the Commission and to the Respondents just before the hearing. In view of the foregoing, this matter is adjourned to be heard again on 2 0 t h May 2016 at 2.00 p.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
8. In case any of the parties files further written submissions to the Commission, copies of the same should reach the Commission and the other party latest by 9.5.2016.
Hearing on 20.5.2016
9. The matter came up again on 20.5.2016. Advocate Sulabh Rewari represented the Appellant. The following were present on behalf of the Respondents:--
"1. Shri K. Sethuraman, Director.
2. Shri B. Anil Kumar, Deputy Secretary.
3. Shri T. Krishnakumar, Senior A. O.
4. Shri M.S. Krishnan, Legal Officer."
Submissions made by the parties
10. The Commission had received the written submissions dated 14.3.2016 from the Appellant that had been taken on record. In these written submissions, a reference has been made to the plea of the Respondents that the pendency of various legal proceedings between different parties constitutes a valid reason for denial of information. In this context, it is stated that Section 8 (1) (b) provides that only such information "which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or Tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court" can be denied. With reference to the argument of the Respondents that the information has been sought by a company, a reference is made to the following decisions of the Commission in the written submissions:--
"(i) Shri J.C. Talukdar v. C.E.(E), CPWD (Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/0014 decided on 17.5.2007).
(ii) Mr. Balaji v. PIO, Regional PF Commissioner (Case No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001462/8540 dated 15.7.2010).
(iii) Sreekumar S. Menon v. S.D. Pillai (CIC/AT/A/2006/00662 decided on 6.3.2007) and Shri R.K. Sharma v. Ministry of Home Affairs (Case No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00264 dated 2.3.2007."
11. It is further stated in the written submissions of the Appellant that the Respondents seek to rely on the decision of the Commission in the case of Mr. Vinod Sunder v. CPIO, Department of Telecommunication (Case No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002529/8989 dated 9.11.2015), wherein the information sought was refused on the ground that the Appellant was a company and not a citizen. It is submitted that without prejudice to the rights available to the Appellant to challenge the said order in the manner available in law, the above decision is inapplicable to this case and distinguishable on facts, in that the Commission rejected the second appeal on the ground that while the RTI application was filed by Shri V. Sunder, the first appeal was preferred by Shri D. Nataraj. It is further submitted that the discrepancy in the persons preferring the appeal was the sole reason for dismissal of the second appeal by the Commission and not the fact that the Appellant was a juristic company. It has also been stated that arising out of the refusal of the Respondents in the year 2011 to provide information to the Appellant's other RTI queries, the Appellant had filed appeals before the Commission which were heard and decided in the year 2012. The Respondents on that occasion had raised a similar plea before the Commission which was categorically overruled by the Commission. In this context, a reference has been made to the Commission decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/003523 dated 13.4.2012 in which the Commission made the following observations:--
"(a) The appellant in the impugned cases is Vinod Sunder R, Company Secretary. He has filed the RTI applications in the letter-head of Devas Multi Media Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has clearly mentioned his name in the RTI applications. That he is a Company Secretary of Devas Multi Media is additional information that he has furnished in the RTI applications. It would be rather implausible to argue that if he files the RTI application under his name, he is entitled to information but if he also mentions therein that he is Company Secretary, he become disentitled to seek information. Besides, use of letter-heads of Devas Multi Media Pvt. Ltd. also appears to be of no consequence. Use of letter-heads, in my opinion, does not disqualify the appellant from seeking the requested information. In fact, this issue had come up before another coordinate Bench of this Commission and vide its decision dated 17.5.2007 in File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00104 & 00105, this Commission had repudiated this contention. The operative para of the decision is extracted below:-- "In conclusion we direct that an application/appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Secs. 6 and 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this Decision Notice."
It is further stated in the written submissions that the Union of India through the Chairman of ISRO challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition 3652 of 2012. In its order, the High Court made the following observations:--
"The further submission of Mr. Saqib is that the querist was not a citizen of India inasmuch, as, he had chosen to raise the queries as the Company Secretary of a company. This submission has been rejected by the CIC and, in my view, rightly so. Merely because the querist Sh. Vinod Sunder. R was holding the position of Company Secretary of M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited, it does not mean that the querist was also a company. Any citizen is entitled to raise queries under the Act and merely because he happens to be working as an employee with a company or an organization, which is not a citizen of India, it does not disentitle him from raising the queries under the Act."
It is the contention of the Appellant that in view of the above decision of the High Court of Delhi, the Respondent is now estopped from denying that the Appellant is entitled to receive information under the RTI Act, "especially so, since the order passed by the High Court is between the same parties."
12. With reference to the exemption sought by the Respondents under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, it is stated that such exemption would apply only in those instances where the public authority is able to cogently prove that the disclosure of the information would prejudicially and adversely affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. With regard to query No. V of the RTI application dated 29.4.2014 (File No. 2787), the CPIO has proceeded to refuse the information on the basis that the consultation process between the Department of Space and TRAI was not yet concluded and could not be disclosed. According to the Appellant, this response is ex-facie untenable in the light of the fact that the said consultation took place in the year 2004/2005 and cannot continue to be underway in the year 2014.
13. As stated in paragraph 4 above, the Respondents have also filed their written submissions dated 22.1.2016. They have cited the following decisions of the Commission in favour of denial of information:--
"(i) CIC/LS/A/2013/001169/SH dated 12.12.2014.
(ii) CIC/SH/A/2014/000503 dated 19.3.2015."
14. During the proceedings on 20.5.2016, oral submissions were made by both the parties. Speaking on behalf of the Appellant, Advocate Rewari stated that in the CPIO's response dated 28.5.2014 to the RTI application dated 29.4.2014 (File No. 2787), two points were made. Firstly, exemption from disclosure was claimed under Section 8 (1) (a) and secondly, it was stated that the information sought in queries No. III and IV of the application were related to pending proceedings before a court/tribunal and the same was excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. Advocate Rewari stated that the CPIO did not give any grounds for invocation of Section 8 (1) (a) for denial of information. It could not be the case of the CPIO that the entire information sought by the Appellant is covered by Section 8 (1) (a). Such information as is covered by Section 8 (1) (a) can be redacted from the information sought, before providing it to the Appellant. However, the entire information should not be denied. With regard to points No. III and IV, the CPIO did not give the details of any proceedings before a court/tribunal. However, the mere pendency of litigation cannot become the ground of denial of information, as mentioned in the written submissions of the Appellant. With regard to point No. V of the RTI application regarding consultation process of TRAI, Advocate Rewari stated that the information was sought nearly ten years after the consultation process in 2004-05 and it could not be the case of the Respondents that the consultations were not concluded in such a long time. In his order dated 8.7.2014, the FAA did not explain his decision and merely stated that he upheld the decision of CPIO and disclosure was exempted under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act for the reasons enunciated by the CPIO. In their written submissions dated 22.1.2016, the Respondents have raised the issue that the information in this case is sought by a company and not a citizen. This issue was not raised earlier either by the CPIO or the FAA. Shri Vinod Sunder R. as Company Secretary of M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. is the information seeker in this case. We asked Advocate Rewari to cite any law or judgment of superior judiciary that would bar the Commission from taking into consideration the above plea made by the Respondents in their written submissions dated 22.1.2016. He did not cite any such law or judgment of superior judiciary. Advocate Rewari referred to the Commission's decision No. 908/ICPB/2007 dated 17.9.2007 in Mr. R.K. Morarka v. Central Bank of India, in which the Commission made the following observations:--
"Even though in terms of RTI Act, only a citizen has the right to seek information from a public authority, this Commission has taken a view that directors of companies, partners of firms and office bearers of associations of persons could also seek information on behalf of the companies, firms and associations respectively. Therefore, the CPIO/the AA could not have rejected the application on the sole ground that a company is not a citizen. This Commission has consistently taken a view that if the information sought relates to a pending proceeding before a competent court/tribunal, then the said information should be obtained only through court/tribunal and not under the provisions of the RTI Act. In the present case, since I find that practically all the information sought relate to the pending proceeding before the DRT, the appellant cannot seek the information under the RTI Act. Accordingly, the application is dismissed."
Advocate Rewari also cited the Commission's decisions No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001446/SG/15330 dated 24.10.2011 and No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00193 dated 18.9.2006 to state that information cannot be denied merely on the ground that the matter is sub-judice. The only exemption in sub-judice matters is under Section 8 (1) (b) of the RTI Act. Advocate Rewari also referred to the cases covered in the written submissions of the Appellant and mentioned at paragraph 10 above. He reiterated that the Commission's decision No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002529/8989 dated 9.11.2015 is not germane to this case. Regarding the appeal on File No. 2788, Advocate Rewari stated that the legal points already made by him would be applicable to this appeal also.
15. The Respondents, speaking on the RTI application dated 29.4.2014 on File No. 2787 stated that the information on point No. (i) regarding dates of ICC meetings was provided. With regard to the second part of this point regarding notice, agenda and minutes of the meetings, the Respondents stated that these documents contain sensitive information such as transponder pricing and allocation policy (under formulation) and orbital slot management, technical details of INSAT/GSAT satellites, future plans, contingency plans etc. and hence the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. The Respondents added that they do not know as to what exact information the Appellant is looking for in this case. They further submitted that their policy formulation is a long process and can continue for more than five years. With regard to point No. (ii) regarding the details of the meetings of ICC held in August/September 2013 time-frame, as well as the agenda and minutes of the said meetings, the Respondents cited the same grounds as in the case of the information concerning the notice, agenda and minutes of the meetings sought at point No. (i). Regarding point No. (iii) of the RTI application concerning the details of letters written by Secretary, DOS and also details of meetings concerning Devas Multi Media Pvt. Ltd. in June 2010 time-frame, the Respondents stated that in view of the pending court cases, investigations and arbitration proceedings concerning the subject of Antrix-Devas agreement, furnishing of any information related to Antrix-Devas agreement would impede the ongoing process of investigations as well as arbitration proceedings, which are in progress. Moreover, this information also concerns S Band which is reserved for strategic needs. Therefore, this information also attracts Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act. The meetings mentioned at this point resulted in the decision of the Space Commission in the meeting of July 2, 2010 (outside the June framework mentioned in the RTI application) that the entire S Band be reserved for strategic purposes and a recommendation was made to annul the agreement with the M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited. According to the Respondents, the submissions made in the case of point No. III also applied to point No. IV. The CCS meeting of February 2011 approved annulment of the agreement with M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited. Regarding point No. V, it was stated that the Respondents did participate in the consultation process of TRAI and the information that is disclosable has already been placed in the public domain on the TRAI website.
16. The Respondents also made submissions on a few more points. They reiterated that the Appellant is a company and not a citizen. In this context, in the course of the hearing, the Respondents submitted that in the RTI applications, the appeals to the FAA and the appeals to the Commission, the name of the applicant/appellant is mentioned as Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. Advocate Rewari stated that the applications and the appeals are signed by Shri Vinod Sunder R. The Respondents did not express any doubt earlier regarding the applications having been filed by a company and sent a reply to Shri Vinod Sunder R. Carrying forward their submissions, the Respondents stated that in case the information sought by the Appellant is made public, it may be passed on to the foreign investors, who are involved in arbitration against Government of India. Such a development would be against the economic interest of the state. In this context, they stated that the ICC has awarded $ 562.5 million to M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited. The Antrix Corporation has challenged the award in a Bangalore Court and M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited have started proceedings in the High Court of Delhi to settle the award. The entire issue of conclusion of the agreement between M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited and Antrix Corporation is under investigation by the investigating agencies. One of the issues being considered is whether Antrix Corporation overlooked requirements of defence while awarding the contract to M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited. Disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that they did not know the stage at which various investigations were and the investigating agencies would know this.
17. Regarding the RTI application on File No. 2788, the Respondents stated that two queries of this application are common with the application on File No. 2787. As regards point No. III of this application, they stated that this information is not available with the Department of Space.
18. Speaking on behalf of the Appellant, Advocate Rewari stated that in response to point No. (i) of the RTI application on File No. 2787, the Respondents had mentioned six meetings. They should show the documents concerning all the six meetings to the Commission to determine the information that does not fall within Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act and can, therefore, be disclosed. Regarding points No. (iii) and (iv) of the above RTI application, he stated that the Respondents could redact the information concerning the bands that are reserved for armed forces. He submitted that the information is being sought under the RTI Act in the interest of transparency and there is no reason to assume that it would be misused and diverted to foreign investors, as alleged by the Respondents. In any case, all such information needs to be produced in the course of arbitration proceedings. The above should not become the ground of wilfully suppressing the documents sought by the Appellant. The Respondents stated that they produced all the documents that were sought by M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited in the course of the arbitration proceedings.
Discussion and Decision
19. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and would first focus on the submission of the Respondents that the information has been sought by a company and not a citizen. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in view of the decision of the High Court of Delhi, mentioned in paragraph 11, the Respondent is now estopped from denying that the Appellant is entitled to receive information under the RTI Act, especially so since the order passed by the High Court is between the same parties. The above contentions of the two parties are examined in the light of the facts placed before us in the two appeals under consideration in this order. In this context, the following observations made by the Commission in two of its orders are germane to the matter before us. In the decision dated 3.3.2008 in The Secretary The Cuttack Tax Bar Association v. The Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, a three member bench of the Commission made the following observations:--
"In the present case, the appellants have come as a distinct legal entity. From the records it appears that the application under the Right to Information Act was submitted on 6th September, 2006 in the name of the Association. The application was signed by the Secretary, Shri Goliath Pasha whose name as an individual can be ascertained only from the Letter Head of the Association and his signature per-se does not signify identity of the signatory. The first appeal has also been filed, not in the name of any individual citizen, but by the Secretary, Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda who seems to have subsequently taken over as Secretary of the Association. Similarly, the 2nd appeal before this Commission has not been filed in the name of any individual citizen but by the Secretary of the Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda as Secretary for and on behalf of the Association. From this, it is clear that the signatories to the application and the appeal under the R.T.I. Act are two distinct individuals. It, therefore, leaves no doubt that it is the Association which is the applicant and the appellant as a distinct legal entity and the Association or its Secretary in its official designation cannot be treated as "citizen" under the law."
Further, in its decision No. CIC/AD/A/2012/000570, CIC/LS/A/2011/003966, CIC/LS/A/2012/001314 and CIC/LS/A/2012/001120 dated 20.5.2013 in '1. Shri Kuljit Singh, 2. Shri Saurabh Jain v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd., another three member bench of the Commission made the following observations:--
"We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf of M/s. Ernst & young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is seeking this information on behalf of M/s. Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of India u/s. 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter, we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s. 3 to seek the impugned information."
In the judgment of the High Court of Delhi [Writ Petition 3652 of 2012], cited by Appellant, it was stated that merely because the querist Shri Vinod Sunder R. was holding the position of Company Secretary of M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited, it did not mean that the querist was also a company. Any citizen was entitled to raise queries under the RTI Act and merely because he happened to be working as an employee with a company or an organization, which is not a citizen of India, it did not disentitle him from raising the queries under the Act. The following conclusions can be drawn from the cases cited above, taken together with Section 3 of the RTI Act:--
"(a) The RTI Act gives the Right to Information only to citizens of India and not to Corporations and Companies etc. which are legal entities/persons, but not citizens.
(b) An office bearer of a company can seek information under the RTI Act on behalf of the company, provided he is a citizen of India. His identifying himself as the office bearer of the company or filing the application on the letterhead of the company does not take away his right to raise queries under the RTI Act.
(c) The RTI applications and the subsequent appeals should be signed by the same person, with his name mentioned on the same.
(d) Since an office bearer, seeking information on behalf of his company, would be construed to be a citizen seeking the information, he would need an authorization from the Board of the company to receive the information concerning its affairs from the Respondent public authority."
20. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant (reference paragraph 11 above) that the discrepancy in the persons preferring the appeal was the sole reason for dismissal of the second appeal by the Commission in decision No. CIC/BS/A/2014/002529/8989 dated 9.11.2015; and not the fact that the Appellant was a juristic company. This is not correct. On the basis of the facts placed before it, the Commission came to the conclusion in the above case that there was no reason for doubt that it was the company which was the applicant. The Commission further observed: "Section 3 of the RTI Act confers the right to seek information to all citizens and the applicant M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. not being a citizen does not have the right to seek information under the RTI Act."
21. It has also been stated on behalf of the Appellant that Shri Vinod Sunder R. as Company Secretary of M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. is the information seeker in this case. Looking at the applications and the appeals in the two cases before us, it is seen that the applications and appeals to the FAA were filed on the letterheads of M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited. These and appeals to the Commission were all signed by Shri Vinod Sunder R., Company Secretary "For Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd." and his name was clearly identified on the same. No doubt has been raised about the Indian citizenship of Shri Vinod Sunder R. With reference to the contents of paragraph 6 above, the Appellant has produced an authorization dated 21.2.2011, signed by S/Shri M.G. Chandrasekhar and Ramachandaran Viswanathan, which reads as follows:--
"Pursuant to the second paragraph of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Company on February 11, 2011 we, M G Chandrasekhar and Ramachandran Viswanathan, Directors, hereby authorise Mr. Vinod Sunder R, Company Secretary, to singly sign and file claims, suits, execution petitions, appeals, complaints, affidavits, applications, Vakalatnamas and all other papers, for and on behalf of the Company and generally to do all acts, matters and things required to be done in this connection."
22. Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the applicant and appellant in these two cases is not Shri Vinod Sudner R., either in his individual capacity or as Company Secretary of M/s. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. The name of the applicant/appellant in the RTI applications and subsequent appeals to the FAA and the Commission is clearly mentioned as "Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd." By signing these at the end "For Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.", Shri Vinod Sunder R., Company Secretary, has only authenticated the fact of these applications and appeals having been filed by M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited. Since Section 3 of the RTI Act gives the right to information to citizens, M/s. Devas Multimedia Private Limited being a juristic person and not a citizen do not have the right to seek information under the RTI Act. In the light of the foregoing, the remaining arguments given by the two parties for and against furnishing of information are not being examined.
23. With the above observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
24. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.