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 f........