Case: 1. Shri Nisar Ahmed Shaikh and Ors., 2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Shri Ravi Raj, 3. Shri V. Shekhar Awasthy Vs 1. LIC Housing Finance Limited, 2. LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd., 3. G.I. Housing Finance Ltd.. Central Information Commission
| Judges | W. Habibullah, C.I.C., M.M. Ansari and A.N. Tiwari, I.Cs. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act |
| Judgement Date | October 28, 2009 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: 1. The Commission has received 10 Complaint Petitions and 4 Appeal Petitions seeking information from three organizations, namely, LIC Housing Finance Limited, LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd. And GIC Housing Finance Limited. The nature of information sought was almost similar as the appellants and complainants in all these cases sought certain information, which information was denied by these organizations on the ground that they were not Public Authorities under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and hence the Right to Information Act is not applicable to them. 2. Since the matter involved an important question of law of general public importance, it was decided that it should be heard and decided by a Full Bench. Hence, all these Complaints and Appeal Petitions were clubbed together and placed before the Full Bench so constituted. 3. The matter pertaining to Complaint Petition of Shri Cherian K. Simon (CIC/AT/C/2007/0216) and Appeal Petition of Shri Nisar Ahmed (CIC/AT/A/2007/ 0735) was partly heard by Full Bench on 25.4.2008. Similarly, matters relating to LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Limited were partly heard by the Full Bench on 17.10.2008. It was submitted that in a similar case, the High Court of Madras by its judgment dated 5th August, 2008 in Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Information Commission and Anr. (2008) 145 CompCas 248(Mad) has declared the Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd as a Public Authority. Therefore, the same should apply to the respondent also. 4. These matters were again placed before the Full Bench along with other pending complaints and appeal petitions involving similar issues and heard on 17.4.2009. The following were present at the hearing: Appellants/Complainants: 1. S/Shri v. Shekhar Awasthy 2. Jas Preet Singh 3. Respondents 1. S/Shri D.S. Bhanushali, DGM, HR & Legal, LIC HFL 2. N.K. Gupta, Authorized Representative 3. Naveen Koul, Secretary (L) 4. Ashok Singhal, AAO(L) 5. P. Ponpandion, Company Secretary, LIC Mutual Fund 6. Vicky Kapoor, Area In charge, GIC HFL 7. Rajiv Talwar, Advocate for GICHFL 8. Sandeep Khatri, Advocate, for GICHFL 9. Bhupendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate for LIC MFAM 5. The only issue that needs be determined in all these cases is as to whether the respondent organizations are Public Authorities or not within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It is not necessary to deal with other matters as regards the information asked for and the response, if any, given by the concerned authorities at this stage. Respondent: LIC Housing Finance Limited 6. The complainant, Shri Cherian K. Simon has made the following submissions concerning his claim that LICHFL is a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act: (i) That LICHFL is a public limited company incorporated on 19th June, 1989 under the Companies Act, 1956 and is promoted by LIC of India and went public in the year 1994. (ii) As on 31st March, 2007, the shareholding pattern of the company is as under: Life Insurance Corporation of (iii) As per Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act, LICHFL can be treated as a Public Authority because it is a non- government organization substantially financed by the LIC of India. (iv) The words "substantially financed" used in the Act in the context of "Public Authority" does not mean more than fifty per cent financed or majority shareholding by the Appropriate Government; (v) LICHFL uses logo which is very similar to the logo of Life Insurance Corporation of (vi) The name of LICHFL itself commences with the word "LIC" which means only one entity and that is "Life Insurance Corporation of 7.Appellant, Shri Nisar Ahmad Sheikh's submissions are summarized below: (i) LICHFL was incorporated by LIC of India which in turn was formed by an Act of Parliament. LIC of India is thus the parent organization of LICHFL hence it is logical that LICHFL also gets covered under the said Act. (ii) That both the companies, i.e. LICHFL and LIC of India, share the same Chairman & Managing Director; (iii) That some percentage of staff revenue of LICHFL is shouldered by LIC of India; (iv) LICHFL is advertised as a product of LIC of India in official publications - one of such publication is the New Year Diary. 8. Appellant, Shri Ahmad also produced a profile of LICHFL and, on the basis of that, has submitted as under: (i) LICHFL is one of the largest Housing Finance companies in (ii) LICHFL was promoted by LIC of India and went public in 1994; (iii) it launched its maiden GDR issue in 2004. The GDRs are listed on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange; (iv) Authorized Capital of the LICHFL is Rs. 100 crores and its paid-up capital is Rs. 85 crores. (v) It is recognized by National Housing Bank and listed in the NSE & BSE and its shares are traded only in D-mat format. (vi) LICHFL has also floated a 100% subsidiary in the name of "LICHFL Care Homes Limited" to conduct the business of providing "Assisted Living Community Centres" for senior citizens. 9. Appellant, Shri Avinash Sharma in his written submission stated that the name of LIC used as a prefix, itself shows that it comes in the category of Public Authority. 10. The other appellants and complainants have not submitted specific arguments pertaining to the issue as to whether LICHFL can be treated as a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. 11. Further, as per the Articles of Association of LICHFL, the appellant enumerated the powers of the LIC as under: (i) As per Article 112(b) of the Articles of Association of LICHFL, so long as LIC holds at least 33% of the issued equity shares of LICHFL, LIC shall be entitled to appoint to the Board 1/3rd of the total number of Directors and LIC will also have the power to remove or replace to that extent. The directors so appointed shall be permanent non-retiring Directors. (ii) As per Article 133(1) of the Articles of Association of LICHFL, LIC may from time to time appoint one of the LIC Directors as Managing Director of the company for such period as it shall think fit and shall also have the power of removal and appointment of other Directors in his place. (iii) LICHFL is a company run by Board of Directors and the entire control vests with the Board of Directors only and all decisions are taken by majority decision. (iv) LICHFL is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is not established or constituted by and under the Constitution, or any other special law made by Parliament/State Legislature or by any Notification issued or order made by the Appropriate Government. 12. The Commission vide notice dated 14.12.2007 communicated its observation that the information was denied by LICHFL on the plea that they are not a public authority under the RTI Act and that LIC is holding 33% of the equity shares and has a right to appoint; 1/3rd of its Directors on the LICHFL Board and LIC can also appoint one of its directors as Managing Director of LICHFL and directed the parties to attend the hearing on 7.2.2008 with all relevant documents. 13. Respondent LICHFL in their reply dated 8.8.2007 stated that the case of the complainant is not that the respondent is a Public Authority within the meaning of Sections 2(h)(a) to (d)(i) of the RTI Act but because the respondent LICHFL is a non-government body and has been substantially financed by funds provided by Appropriate Government, therefore, it is a Public Authority. LICHFL made the following submissions: (i) This Commission in `Col. P.K. Garg v. Care Homes Ltd - Appeal No. 523/ICPB/2007 - has categorically held that LICHFL is not a Public Authority since LIC does not hold more than 50 per cent share in it and since the matter has already been set at rest by the Commission, it cannot be re-agitated; (ii) The Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Insurance Division has already considered the matter and conveyed their decision vide No. M-1 8011/14/2007-INS-III dated 12.6.2007 that LICHFL being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, provisions of RTI Act are not applicable to it; (iii) The Cabinet Secretariat in its meeting held on 20th February, 2007 has categorically held that LICHFL is not a Government controlled company; (iv) The words "substantially financed" in the definition of Public Authority have not been defined in the Act and, therefore, external aid of concoction needs to be applied to know the exact meaning of the word `substantial' which as per Oxford Dictionary, 9th Ed means "of large size of amount". Hence LICHFL should have been financed at least up to 50 per cent or more from funds provided by Appropriate Government. (This has also been held by the Commission in its decision in `Col. P.K. Garg v. Care Homes Ltd (supra). (v) That share capital of Life Insurance Corporation of India along with other companies in LICHFL is not more than 45.918 per cent, therefore, LICHFL cannot be held to be substantially financed for the purpose of being a Public Authority; (vi) Moreover, as per the definition of Appropriate Government, Life Insurance Corporation of |
To continue reading
Request your trial