I {

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION. File No, ClClLSl Cl 20721 0007 74

Appellant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Public Authorlty i R.espondents Delni & District Cricket Association Date of Decision 13.04.2015

Brief Facts: 1. Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed a complaint on 8.6.2012 stating that there was no response from respondents to his RTI petition dated 30.4,2012 seeking details about a) land provided to stadium of DDCA at Feroz Shah Kotla Ground, b) title, ownership/lease/freehold/rent, rate of rent, subsidy given, other facilities, security, etc. provided by Government or state resources, c) activities undertaken, eligibility criterion for enrolment of membership of Association, total number, various categories, d) number of voters, e) powers and facilities available to office bearers, f) number of mailed envelopes containing proxy-forms returned undelivered, g) number votes received at elections held last, h) system of distribution of complimentary tickets,/passes during several matches conducted by BCCI ant IPL etc, i) number of envelops with such passes for matches held till 30th April 2012, along with, j) envelopes returned undelivered, kj utillzation of seats fell vacant due to return of complimentary tickets, l) relationship of DDCA with BCCi, etc and m) any other related information along with file-notings on movement of the RTI petition as well.

2. The complainant sought a direction to provide documents free of cost as per S 7(6) and compensation under S 19(8)(b) besides invoking the penal

provisions. On reference from the Hon'ble Commissioner Shri M.L Sharma, a . full bench of the Commission was constituted.

LS/C/20t2/00071+ ,o\ Page 1 ,o t;l-o i' , ) Complainant's case

3. The complainant's case is: the DDCA is a PubllcAuthority undersection 2(h) of the RTI Act because it is substantially financed by the Central Government in as much as a plot of land measuring 14.28t acres at Ferozshah Kotla has been allottecl to it on temporary basis for a period of 33 years w.e.f' 1.4.2002 and DDCA is required to pay license fee @ Rs. 5,500/- per acre per annum for the open space and at the rate of 5% per annum @ Rs. 88 Iacs per acre for built up area, revisable after every 11 years on the basis of land rates prevailing at that time. The land is located in the heart of the capital city of Delhi and the fee structure grossly falls short of the prevailing market rates and this can be construed as indirect substantial financing of DDCA. It is an Association under the Companies Act, which has its office at Willington Pavilion, Kotla Ferozshah, New Delhi..The object of this Association is to encourage and promote the game of cricket in the Province of Delhi and districts of Karnal, Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahr, Gurgaon etc, The other objects of the Association are to finance or assist in the organization or promotion of Provincial Cricket Association and of Inter Provincial Tournaments as also to promote and hold/organize, either singly or jointly with other Associations, Clubs or persons, cricket matches and competitions etc. Complainant contended:

a. The Delhi & District Cricket Association is a "public authority" as defined r.rnder section 2(h) oi the Right to Information Act for the reason that it is substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the a ppropriate Government(s).

b. The DDCA is one of the 30 Member State Cricket Associations of the BCCI and has an umbilical cord attached to its parent National Sports Federation BCCI which is responsible for the promotion and development of the game of cricket across the length and breadth of India just like the DDCA is solely responsible for the promotion and development of cricket within the entire territory of the National Capital Region of Delhi.

c. That in the course of management of their affairs, the BCCI, in consultation with the world parent body viz,, International Cricket Council other cricket playing countries, prepares itinerary

LS/C/2012/000774 a\ Page 2 :l (n lo ".? i, 3 c,' \ * \o'\.r ,- ) through the Future Tours Program (FTP) by fixing schedule for international matches / tournaments such as the iCC World Cup for ODI's and T20, Champions Trophy, Champions League besides Tests, One Day Internationals and T20 matches played between its member nations, amongst others. Thus these cricket matches are played at various venues in India belonging to Member State Associations of BCCI like the Respondent DDCA (Ferozshah Kotla Ground) and abi"oad. In addition to otner international fixtures, the BCCI ifirough its 30 affiliated Member State Associations such as the Respondent DDCA, Punjab Cricket Association (PCA), Kerala Cricket Association (KCA), Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), etc also holds domestic cricket fixtures throughout the length and breadth ol the country. All district, state and inter-state matches / tournaments, including but not limited to, the Ranji Trophy, the Irani Trophy, the Duleep Singh Trophy, the Deodhar Trophy and the N.K.P. Salve Challenge Trophy, etc are also hosted by the BCCI and / or its Member State Association(s) including Respondent DDCA. Not only this, for the last six Seasons the BCCI though considered to be a "Not for Profit Charitable Organisation" is also responsible for holding an out & out commercial venture namely the Indian Premier League, popularly known as the "IPL" all across India including Delhi. As is well known, auction of franchisee teams and players including renowned international cricketers is also held involving billions of rupees to be paid to them for their respective participation in the game. For the aforementioned international, domestic & league matches, BCCI, DDCA and various IPL Franchisees enter into separate commercial contracts regarding in-stadia rights, gate money, sub-leasing of stadia, etc , as is the case between Respondent DDCA, BCCI and Delhi GMR Franchisee (Delhi Dare Devil).

d. Not a single penny as revenue can be earned, much less tens, hundreds and thousands of Crores, whether by the BCCI or its Ivlember Asso.,lation (Respondent DDCA) in the absence of a cricket ground / stadia where matches are held such as the Ferozshah Kotla Grounds in the heart of the capital city of Delhi. It is quite evident that the BCCi and its Member State Association including the Respondent DDCA earn majority of their revenues (almost 85-90 per cent) by selling various properties / rights (W Rights, in-stadia rights, sponsorships, etc) of various matches, domestic or international as detailed in paragraph 3 hereinabove, on the solemn assurance that they shall host these cricket matches on a ground in a cricket stadium which would be viewed by thousands of people within the stadium and millions across the world through the medium of television, radio, internet, etc. Hence,.there is an umbilical cord between the BCCI and its Member State Associations like the Respondent DDCA as all the stadia across the length and breadth of India including Ferozshah Kotla Ground in Delhi is leased out to the

Ls /c12017, /0007 L4 Page 3 various Member State Associations of BCCI such as to the Respondent DDCA for Delhi. No revenue whatsoever would be earned by either the BCCi or the DDCA, etc in the absence of these cricket giounds / stadia situated in prime localities made available to them by various local state Governments and that too at a pittance of a lease amount instead of the prevailing market rate. The Respondent DDCA is a recipient of Union and/or State Governments largesse and/oi- grants/ inter alla, in the forrn of nominal lease of prime land given to it at throw away prices and not at the prevailing market price for the Ferozshah Kotla stadium. It is only because of such massive infrastructure provided by the Government that Respondent DDCA is able to save millions of Rupees annually. But for ttris wind fall concession which is clearly in the nature of substantial indirect funding, it would be almost impossible for the DDCA to purchase such vast land of about 14.28 acres built in Lhe heart of the capital city of Delhi at the prevalent market price. Even if one considers the current circle Rate, which is known to be far less than the prevailing market price in the area, the said 14.28 acres of land at Ferozshah Kotla would come to thousands of crores of Rupees and not a meager lease amount of about Rs. 24.64 Lakh per annum which is currently being paid by the DDCA to the local Government and that too for a long term lease'

f. Besides, affiliated Member State Associations of the BCCI like the Respondent DDCA, also avail huge concessions from the Government in the.form of providing them free of cost security while hosting cricket'matches commonly known as "police bandobast". But for such substantial largesse's, grants and.concessions or funding by the Centre and / or State Government it would be almost impossible for the DDCA and its parent body BCCI to function as such leave alone generate revenues to the tune of Crores of Rupees annually. Thus huge amount of financial benefits accrue to the Respondent DDCA.

On bei"ralf of complainants, ilon'ble MP (Lok Sabi,a) Mr. Kirti Azad, forriler test cricketer and member of World Cup winning team in 1983, presented following points explaining the concessions granted by Government, controls exercised and made serious allegations of irregularities against the DDCA.

a. The DDCA occupies 14.28 acres of lakhs of prime land in Delhi, for which it pays mearly Rs 24.64 lakh of license fee annually. Since 2002, no lease executed by MoUD with DDCA, for want of compliance with various requirements listed by L&DO vide their ietter L&DO/111/17(32)02/stZ dl l0th July, 2OO2- DDCA therefore is clearly in. unauthorized possession of this land that is conservatively estimated to be worth Rs 5000 crores' b. L&DO have been repeatedly requesting DDCA to fulfill certain conditions, yet DDCA have not cared to complete the requisite formalities.

LS/C/2012/000714 Page 4 , )"

c. There are no approvals from statutory bodies like DUAC, ASI, MCD, Fire Department etc. d. Every time there is a match, temporary approvals are sought from MCD on purely political considerations- endangering the lives of 4500O spectato rs. e. While no Government property can be sub-leased, DDCA has illegally constructed 1O Corporate Boxes and have sub -leased these boxes for 10 years to corDorate such as ONGC and have collected Rs 36 crore, withoul seeking approval of the land ou,iners ie Government of India. f, Nearly Rs 158 crore has been spent on building an unauthorized stadium for which no accounts are available. SFIO has confirmed that no tenders have been issued for work carried out/materials purchased even for non-ro utine items. g. There is rampant cheating of entertainment tax by pricing a large number of tickets at a mere Rs100 while paying spectators have to fork out Rs 10000-Rs 50000/ per seat. h. While no member of DDCA can be paid any fees for doing any work for DDCA, many members who are close to the powers that be are being regularly paid money. Even the learned Counsel in present case, Shri Bakshi has been receiving large amounts for fighting several cases on behalf of DDCA, which is againstthe rules. DDCA keeps on fighting with Government departments contesting property tax, ESi etc and keeps paying crores in Iegal fees alone. i. Benefit of Sec 25 Companies Act enables DDCA to retain power with dubious characters who misuse the proxy system, and through the conduct of fraud elections, some offlce bearers manage to perpetuate themselves. j. The DDCA selects players, and this activity is akin to a state function- no one can play for Delhi without being selected by DDCA to represent Delhi in various age groups. k. Any player who plays for Delhi, gets advantages such as employment in Government/Psus/Private Sector on the basis of DDCA'S certificate to this effect. A player is qualified to be feted with Padma awards or even Bharat Ratna, lf he excets in cricket. l. Following a Parliamentary Question (USQ No 2618 dt 28th August, 2012), GOI set up a Committee headed by Regional Director (North) under Section 2O9 A, which has severely indicted DDCA for irregularities, financial bungling, mismanagement, membership frauds etc. Because of the political clout of DDCA, three office bearers out of 27 have managed to compound the various infractions for just Rs 1.33 lakh each whereas they were to be fined approximately Rs 50 lakh each. Rest 24 office bearers have not even been prosecuted till date.

5. Complainant further contended that the DDCA had government nominees on its Board of Directors, it got exemption from Entertainment tax, and Income Tax, besides it was holding IPL with its own team - Delhi Dare Devils, which are attributes that characterize DDCA as 'public authority' under RTI Act,

LS/C/2012/0007t4 6) (z\ t?, l9t $r 'g'rarr rl{i 6. Complainant has relied on the judgmenl of Indian Olympic Association v, Veeresh Kumar Malik [(20i0) ILR 4 Delhi 1] decided by Delhi High Couft on 7.!O.2OL2, wherein 'substantial funding' of Common Wealth Games Committee was explained and concluded that the financing or funding of the Games Committee, concededly a non-governmental organization, is substantial; it is therefore, a public authority, within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act,.....". He has also relied on the judgments in Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors. dated 09.05.2011 reported as 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 915, Decision of State Information Commission in CC 3315 of 2010 dated 12.05.2011, K, Balaji lyengar Versus State of Kerala IMANU/kel2899/2001]upheld by the Supreme Court of India, thereby holding the Executive CommiLtee members of the State Cricket Association as public servants'under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Respondent's contentio n

7. The respondents case is; the DDCA ls not enjoying Government land at concessional/minimal rates, it is paying Rs. 24,64,415/- per annum as yearly lease rent to the Central Government and it does not enjoy exemption from Income Tax, The land allotment is also subject to the approval of lay out plan by ADG (Arch), CPWD and it is required to use the land only for the purpose for which it has been allotted and not for any other purpose.

8. Learned Counsel for DDCA, Mr. A,S. Bakshi has presented following points: a) DDCA has been registered as an Association under the Companies Act, which has its office at Willington Pavilion, Kotla Ferozshah, New Delhi. b) The object of this Association is to encourage and promote the game of cricket in the Province of Delhi and districts of Karnal, Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahar, Gurgaon etc. c) The other objects of the Association are to finance or assist in the organization or promotion of Provincial Cricket and of Inter Provincial Tournaments as also to promote and hold/organize, either singly or jointly with other Associations, clubs or persons/ cricket matches and competitions etc. d) DDCA is not an authority of self Government established or constituted

LS/C/20t2/000714 Page 6 )

either by or under the constitution or by any other law made by the Parliament or State Legislature, e) DDCA is neither owned nor controlled by the Government. f) DDCA is not a body or institutlon whlch is essentially financed by the Government. Importantly, g) DDCA is not in receipt of any grants from the Government or any of its instrumentalities and that its affairs are managed by self generated funds and the grants of BCCI alone' The relevant portion of the representatlon dated 77 .7.2014 is extracted below:- i. The DDCA is not an'authority', or self-government which is established or constituted either by or under the constitution, or by any other law made by the Parliament, or by any other law made by the State Legislature, or by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Governments. ii. The respondent-DDCA is neith er a 'bodr7' nor a n 'institution of self-govern ment which is established or constituted either by or under the constitution, or by any other law made by the Parliament, or by any other law made by the State Legislature, or by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Govern m ent. iii. The DDCA is not owned by any one or any government. iv. The DDCA is not controlled by any Government. v. The DDCA is not'a'body'or'institution'which is substantially financed from any Government fu nds. vi. The Delhi and District Cricket Association is affiliated to Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI), The Board of Control for Cricket in lndia (BCCI), headquartered at Mumbai, India, is a society, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The Delhi and District Cricket Association is in . receipt of grants from the BCCI alone. The Delhi and Dlstrict Cricket Association is not ih receipt ofany grants from Government of any organ oithe government and its affairs are managed by self generated funds and the grants of the BCCI alone."

9. Learned Council SriAS Bakshi also distinguished the DDCA from the decisions of the High Court relied upon by the complainant. It is his forceful contention that decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Indian Olympic Association, Organizing Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010 and Sanskrit; School stands on its own facts and the ratio of this decision cannot be applied to the DDCA as the factual matrix of this case is totally different. In context of indian Olympic association judgment the relevant portion of the Respondent submission re-stated as under:

"7. it is also the respectful submission on behalf of the answering DDCA that in the case of India n Olym pic Association'decided by the Lea rned S ihgle Judge of the Hon'ble Delhi Hlgh Courtvide judgment dt. 07.01.10 in WP(c) No.876/2007- by laying down that the principle of 'substantial funds' would deserve to be determined o of each case.

LS/C/2072/000714 r} '". i ;.j i ..{i ,).1 fo- ,{i 't

B. It has been held that the Indian Olympic Association would fall within the purview of Section 2(h) of the Act, inter alia, on the ground that it is getting substantial funding from the Government in as much as almost all the entire expenses in relation to the participation of the players in sports competition act. is borne from the Government funds, The Hon'ble High Court in its judgment has analyzed the auditors'report (Para 64) in relation to the iOA and has come to the conclusion that the fur.ding br7 the Gover-n".ent consistent!,1 !s part of its balance sheet, and IO depends on such amounrs to aid and assist travel, transportation of sportsmen and sports managers alike, serves to underline its public, or predominant position, Without such funding, the IOA would perhaps not be able to work effectively. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge of Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as under:-

".....31. The Central Government states that it released following grant-in-aid to the petitioner during the last three years 2007-07 to 2008-09 towards participation of Indian contingents in m u lti-d isciplinary international sports events and hosting of the m ultid isciplina ry international sports events in India. The details are as follows:

s,Aro, Year Amount 1. 2006-07 Rs. 5.38 crore 2. 2007-08 Rs. 2.44 crore 3. 2008-09 Rs.2.38 crore

It is submitted that in view of the above details of amounts approved and . sanctioned, IOA is receiving substantial Central Government financial assistance and thus falls within the definition of Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. 10. Learned Council Sri AS Bakshi has also relied on Judgment in National Stock Exchange of fndia Ltd. v. Central Information Commission [(2010)100SC 146 K (Delhi)] and Delhi Intesrated Mutti-Modet Traffic system v. Rakesh A'ggarwal [2012 (131) DR J537] for stating that the ratio of these decisions is not aoplicable in case of DDCA as the factual matrix of these cases is totally different. Learned Advocate Mr. Bakshi has also contended that the ratio of the Kerala High court Judgment dated 26.10.2010 in K. Balaji lyangar v. State of Kerala [NIANU/ke/2g99l2010] is not applicable in the present case as the Kerala High court had held the Kerala cricket Association to be a public Authority under section 2(h) and its Secretary and President as public servants by virtue of the fact that the Kerala cricket Association was getting financial assistance from the Kerala state sports council,'but DDCA is not getting any financial assistance'from either

LS/C/?072/00071_4 11. Learned Council AS Bakshi referred to Shri Anil Chintaman Khare v, Boa rd of Control for Cricket for India BCCI, Appeal NO. 1336/ICPB/2008, F.NO.PBC/07/266, Daled January 2t,20A8, in which it was claimed that BCCI does not fall under category of Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because it is registered as society under-the Socleties Registration Aci and no direction can be given to BCCI to furnish information. He also referred to matter of Shri Om Prakash Kashiram v, BCCI in File No. qC/LS/A/2071/001382, which was also dismissed by CIC on similar grounds.

He has further referred to Orders dated 2ath July 2013 in BCCI v CIC imposing a stay on further proceedings before CIC.

72. Respondent in his written submission referred to the relevant clauses of the Memorandum of Association of the DDCA to support their case:

A. That the name of the Company (hereinafter called the DDCA") is "the Delhi & District Cricket Association". B. The registered office of the DDCA shall be situated in the provisions of Delhi at the Willington Pavilion Kotla Ferozeshah, New Delhi, unless otherwise hereafter determined by.the members and confirmed by a Court having jurisdiction in the matter. C. That the objects for which the DDCA is established are: a. to encourage and promote the game of cricket in the province of Delhi and District of Karnal, Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahr, Gurgaon (hereinafter called the area and for that amongst other purposes organize and run club and to take over the assets and liabilities of the Association called Delhi and District Cricket Association. b. to layout any ground for playing the game of cricket and for other purpose of the association and to provide pavilion, refreshment rooms and other conveniences in connection tnerewith and with a view thereto purchase, lease or otherwise acquire Iand at such price or rent and for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may seem expedient. c. to finance or assist in financing of the teams d. to assist in the organization or promotion of provincial Cricket Association and of inter provincial tournaments e. to promote and hold either along or jointly with any other Association, Club or person, cricket matches and competitions, to give or contribute towards awards and distinctions and for the purposes of the Association to promote give or support dinners, balls and other entrustments. f. to esfablish, promote or assist in establishing and promoting and to subscribe to and become a member of or affiliate with any other Association or club, whether incorporate or not, whose objects are similar or in a part similar to the objects of the Association or the establishment or promotion of which may be beneficial to the

LS/C/2012/000774 Page 9 Association and in particular to subscribe to finance, give or lend money to and guarantee the Contracts of any Cricket Association recognized by the Association. D. The Respondents in their additional submission under paras 2 to 5 stated that the objects of the DDCA, as per Section 25 of company, are not for profit and are completely aimed towards promotion and encouragement of cricket in the province of Delhi. None of the original subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the DDCA ic a Governrnent employee or associated in any manner whatsoever to the Govei-nment. Ali the original subscribers were private individuals, E. It is clarified that under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, an association having objects to promote commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other useful purpose and not having any profit motive can be registered as non-profit company, This section empowers the Central Government (power delegated to Registrar of Companies now) to grant a license directing that such an association may be registered as a company with limlted liability, without the addition of the words'Limited'or'Piivate Limited'to its name. Mere grant of license by the Registrar of Companies does not lead to the conclusion !hat the company holding such a license comes under the administrative control of the ROC. It is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that such a company is a non-profit organization formed for promotion of commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other useful object, applies its profits or other income in promotion of its objects and prohibits payment of dividend to its members. The conditions of license ensure that such a company continues to function as not for profit organization. F. Therefore, DDCA is not working under the administrative or financial control of any Government. AIso, as per the Companies Regulations, 1956 (s,r.o,432) dated 18,O2.1956), license under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 is granted by Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Thus, the Companies Regulations, 1956 show that it is actually the Ministry of Corporate Affairs which has powers to give directions to DDCA and reference to the word "Central Government" under Clauses 4(vi) and 4(vii) of the Memorandum of Association of DDCA is nothing but reference to "Ministry of Corporate Affairs". Clearly, it is not the case of RTI Applicant / Complainant that "Ministry of Corporate Affairs" is controlling or substantially financing the DDCA. The grant of license is not an administrative act but in factum, a ministerial act of the Governnre.j:. Licensing is a duty slnce there is a direct claim, by any person who satisfies certain legal requirements, to obtain a license from the licensing authority. There is no application of mind or judicial skills required in grating a licensing as soon as the conditions prescribed by law are satisfied. Perhaps, it is for this reason that a Licensor is never held accountable even vicariously for the actions of a Licensee. As per 'famal Uddin Ahmad Vs. Abu Saleh Najmuddin and Anr.'IAIR 2003 SC 19L71, a ministerial act, is one which a person performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to, or the exercise of, his own judgment upon the propriety of the act done. In ministerial duty nothing is left to discretion; it is a simple, definite duty, Clearly, the license granted under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not mean that Government will be vicariously held liable forthe act's of DDCA done pursuantto the grant of license, That ii why; the mere grant of Iicense doesn't give any controlling authorlty to the Central / State Government qua the functioning of DDCA,

LS/C/20t2/0007L4 Page 10 )

G. Now, merely 3 out of 27 members of the Executive Committee are Government nominees, and such representation is not even close to being substantial representation by the Government on the Executive Committee of respondent - DDCA. Moreover, the 3 Government nominees are to be considered as'Honorary members' as per Article 38 of Articles of Association (AoA). Now, Article 14 of the AoA defines the rights of 'Honorary Members' and it is clearly stated therein that Hon, Members shall be entitled to all the pi-iv leges of i-neir.bership 'excepi right to vote or to contest for any position of the Association'. H. Therefore, it is manifestly apparent that 3 Government nominees on the Executive Committee of DDCA neither have power to participate in the general, administrative or financial affairs of the DDCA nor have the power to vote when the Executive Committee conducts the day-today business and affairs of DDCA. Preliminary Objection

13. Respondents raised certain preliminary objection: It is not disputed that this Hon'ble Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims of RTi Applicants under the RTI Act, 2005 in so Far as such claims peftain to ,.public Authorities" under the ambit and purview of the RTi Act, 2005. However, problem arises if the very jurisdiction of this Hon'ble commission is challenged at the threshold by the DDCA, on the ground that it is not a "public Authority" under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. In such cases, the issue essentially becomes an issue of fact which can only be determined on the basis of evidence lead by the parties to the dispute. It is again a settled principle of law of evidence that the onus to prove the existence of any fact lies on the pafty alleging that fact.

14' Respondents counsel contended that, not only has the complainant miserably failed to discharge that onus to support his averments and allegations but has further, miserably failed in bringing home necessary documentary evidence to prove that DDCA is either owned, controlled or substantially financed by any Government. In the absence of any coherent and probable evidence led by the complainant before this Hon'ble commission in support of his averments, it will be unjust, improper and erroneous for this Hon'ble commission to decide the issue of fact (i.e. whdther or not DDCA is'public Authority, under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005) against the Respondent - DDCA.

LS/C/20L2/00071.4 ,'n o Page 11 3\r- q ''W--T 6B5 )

15. Respondent further submitted that this Hon'ble Commission lacks the statutory mandate of the RTI Act, 2005 to declare anybody "Public Authority". The powers and functions of this Hon'ble Commission are set out distinctly under Chapter V of the RTI Act, 2005 (Sections 18 and 19) and none of the provisions contained therein confer any power on this Hon'ble Commission to determine the issue as to whether a particular association (such as DDCA in the present case) is a'Public Authority'under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Coutt of India in 'Chief Information Commissioner and Anr. v. State of Manipur and Anr. [2071(13) SCALE 46Ol has also examined the scope of Section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Apex Court has Iaid down that;

"35:[...] It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time-honored principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1876)) 1Ch.D. 426 that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. [...]"

l6.Respondent also relied on the decision of Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi Hlgh Court in'Delhi Development Authority Vs, Central fnformation and Anr, [W.P.(C) 127L4 of 2009 decided on 2110512010] while quashing the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulation s, 2007 ; has held that: I

I "39[...] The Central Information Commission is not a court and certainly not a body which exercises plenary jurisdiction. The Central Information Commission I is a creature of the statute and its powers and functions are circumscribed by the

I statute. It does not exercise any power outside the statue.[...]

I

lT,Respondent finally contended that the Hon'ble Commission lacks the plenary. inherent powers to determine issues which it is not statutorily empowered to

LS/C/2012/000714 Jt

determine or which are beyond the scope and ambit of Chapter V of the RTI Act, 2005.

lB.Respondent made another written submission stating (a) the land belonging to DDCA is not a DDA land and it may pertain to L&DO under the Ministry of Urban Development, (b) DDA aiiots land mainly for petrol pump, gas godown sites on purely temporarily basis for certain fixed tenure and the license fee is calculated at the rate of 5 o/o of the globalized rate, which is based on the premium of land on AAR for commercial land. (c) Taking.into account the fact that the purpose of petrol pump and gas godown sites is commercial; therefore the license fee is worked out at the rate of 5 % of the value of commercial land... The respondents added a note: There is no instance of any allotment of land in DDA for the purpose of stadium either on permanent or temporary basis, hence the license fee for this particular use of land cannot be worked out. It has been given to understand that the institutional and other priorities existing at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and other adjoining areas within the vicinity of the

area popularly known as ITO & L P estate belongs to L&DO under the Ministry of Urban Development therefore, it would be appropriate, if the L&DO is contacted in this matter".

19,As observed by Hon'ble Commissioner M.L. Sharma, in his order dated 23.1.2013 referring to averments of respondents:

"As directed Shri Sumit Gakhar, Dy Land and Development, Ministry of Development has filed an affidavit dated 27.LL.2012 before the Commission in which he has mentioned the terms of license fee payable by the licensee i.e DDCA. The relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced below :-

A plot of land measuring t4.2Bt acres at Ferozshah Kotla has been allotted on temporary basis to DDCA for a period of 33 years w.e.f L.4.2002 vide allotment letter dated t0.O7.2002. One of the conditions of allotment is as under:- The DDCA will pay license fee @ Rs 5500/- per acre per annum, for the open space and @ 5 o/o per annum of Rs BB Lacs per acre w revisable after every 11 years on the basis of land rates fi-ffi prevailing at that time, these rates are provisional as the land rates are under revishion. In case, the land rates are,revised upward, the allottee will pay the enhanced Iicensee fee "Accordingly the demand was raised by the DDCA."

LS/C/2012/000774 Page 13 )

Along with the affidavit, Shri Gakhar has also enclosed a copy of the Ministry . letter dated 10.O7.2002 addressed to the President DDCA, which inter-alia, co nta in s the following stipulations:- a. the allotment has been made on license basis for the period of 33 years. b. the license fee has been prescribed as mentioned in the affidavit extracLed a bove c. the allotment is subject to the approval of lay out plan by ADG (Arch), CPWD d. DDCA is required to use the land only for the purpose for which it has been allotted and not for any other purpose e. The Ministry of Urban development: Dept: of Youth affairs and sports and the sports authority of India shall have one nominee y,:li r ifl il: #T.l',ff. iil #'1T,""' ;,'S3.o o mentioned in the said letters are as follows:- ",,"u.

Net acres of the plot: 141281 acres

1. License fee for 5.491 acres for Buildup area @ 5 o/o of Rs BB Lacs Per acre per annum Rs 24,16,040/- 2. License fee for 8.790 acres for the Open space @ Rs 5500 per annum Per Acre per annum Rs 48,345/- 3, Cost of preparation of agreement for Lease Rs 3o/- Totat: Rs z4,u4,4*s ,-

Shri Gakhar has also produce a copy of the letter dated 16.4.1999 of the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment on the subjects "fixation of prices of Govt. of Land for the allotment to various Social, Cultural and other organizations in Delhi/New Delhi". As per annexure attached to this letter, the rate per acre in Central zone has been fixed at Rs BB Lacs. It is pertinent to mention that the land in question falls in the Central zone it is also pertinent to me.tion that Shri Gakhar has submitted before the Commission that the allotment has been made to the DDCA as per license fee determined by the Central government and that no concession has been shown to it. (see paragraphs 18-22 of the order of Hon'ble M L Sarma)

20. The respondent further submitted that the DDA itself has stated that there is no instance of allotment of land in DDA for the purpose of the stadium either on permanent or temporary basis hence the license fee for this particular use of land cannot be worked out and further the land in the area popularly known as ITO & I.P estate belong to L&DO under the Ministry of Urban Development therefore, it would be appropriate, if the L&DO is contacted in this matter,,. The L & DO has con at there have been no favors extended to the Delhi ,f'Xe/"{..atlOn rr:\ LS/cl20rz/00071,4 i.'l r]/ Ul''o Page'J-4 al ,1 ):

and Delhi Cricket Association in the matter of allotment. Hon'ble Commission in the matter of Shri Shanmuga Patro v. Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (CTC/WB / C/ 2OO9 / OOO424), observed as under: "7. Adv Basu has relied on certain decisions of this Commission to buttress his point. He relies on CiC decision in Gp Capt M KapoorVs DGMI daled29.t.2OO7, whei-ein it rryas helC that the Army \/elfare l-lousinE Organization (AWHO) is not a 'Public authority' uls2 (h) of the RTi Act essentially oit the ground that the Society is an autonomous body and the fact that it received some grants from the Government sporadically would not lend it the attributes of a public authority.

B. He also relied on this Commission's decision dated 5.1'2008in Mohd Safdar Imam Vs Indian Institute of Welfare wherein it was held that the Institute was not a public authority mainly because it received not more than 200lo grants in aid from the Government.

14. As regards the question of deputation of All India Services officers to RGF, needless to say, this is being done as per All India Service Rules. Only one IAS officer is presently working in RGF and his salary etc. are being paid by RGF and not by the Central or State Government. Hence, nothing much turns on this point."

Documents and Deeds 21.It is necessary to look into the documents submltted by the parties, the L& DO and others. 22. ln pursuance of the Commissions letter dated 17.07.2074, the Deputy Land & Development Officers (L&DO) wrote a letter on 07.'OB.2Ot4,which contains the following relevant paragraphs: a) The lease deed has not been executed with the DDCA. Land measuring 14.281 acres at Ferozshah Kotla has been allotted on temporary basis to DDCA for a p;riod of 20 Years with :ii'ect from 13.02.19E6 a:; per the Deed of License executed on 06.09.1988. b) The license was executed form time to time and the last such extension was granted for a period of 33 years with effect from 01.04.2002 as perthe terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 10.07.2002. Land Allotment deed to DDCA 23.The Document furnished by L&DO with respect to initial allotment to DDCA on 13,02.1986 contains following salient features: 1. Land measuring L4.2Bl acres was allotted on License basis at Ferozeshah Kotla Cricket Ground for use as a Club House and Cricket ground.

2. The allotmen to the terms and conditions as given in the license

LS/C/2072/000774 t'\ Page 1-5 o i( lr) */

\r nr I )

deed which includes : i) Allotment will be on license basis for a period of 5 years. ii) The DDCA will pay license fee for open area at Rs 400 Per acre Per annum, revisable after every 5 years or from the date of issue of general orders revising the rate of temporary allotment of open areas to sports organizations, whichever is earlier. viii) there shall be at least 1 nominee each of the Ministry of urban De',,elcpment. the Drpartment cf Yci:l-: Affaii-s & Spcts, Spots arthor-ity of Inciia on the Managing committee of ihe DDCA, x) New Construction including addilions and alterations of the existing building shall not be carried out without the prior approval in writing of the lessor. xvii) the land in question falls under the jurisdiction of the MCD.

License Fee Dues for Fresh allotment: i) License fee for Open area measuring 12.885 acres @ Rs. 400/- Per acre @ Rs 5154 P,A ii) License fee for build up area 1.346 acre @ Rs 27920 P.A. iii) License fee for Gas Godown area 244.895 sq. meter @ Rs 36734 Per annum from 30.11.82 to 18.12.85 B. Damage charges Renewal of Allotment Deed 24.The L&DO has renewed the allotment of land to DDCA on 10,07.2002 with the

following stipu lations : -

1. In supersession of allotment letter dated L3.2.86, President of Indja sanctioned temporary allotment of a plot of land for use as a club house and cricket grounds for a period of 33 years w.e.f 1.4.2002.

2. The allolment is subject to the terms and conditions to be given in the agreement for Iease and lease deed which shall also include the following :

i) The allotment will be on license basis for a period of 33 years. ii) The DDCA will pay license fee @ Rs 5500 per acre per annLlm, for the - open space,ind @ 5 o/o per annum cf Rs 88 lacs per acre r..;isable after every 11 years on the basis of land rates prevailing at that time. These rates are provisional as the land rates are under revision. In case the Iand rates are revised upward, the allottee will pay the enhanced license fee. ii i) The allottee is subject to the approval of the layout by the ADG, CpWD. iv) The DDCA will use the land only for the purpose for which it has been allotted and not for any other purposes. v) There shall be 1 nominee each of the Ministry of urban Development, the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, Sports authority of india on the Managing committee of the DDCA.

25'The Supreme Court in Talappattam spid; "...AIl the same, if there is any dispute on facts as to whether a particular society is a public authority or not, the...Information Co ssion can examine the same and find out whether the

LS/C/2012100071.4 (;\ ,t le )'

Society in question satisfies the test laid in this judgment". Hence all preliminary objections raised by respondents do not stand (Para 51).

The'substantial' issue:

26.The substantive issue before the Commission is 'whether the DDCA is a public authority as per Section 2(h) of RTi Act, 2005'. To decide this, the questions of law, interpretations, facts and application of law are examined by the Commission.

Question of Law and Interpretation

27. Having reviewed the strong contentions on either side, the nature of the public authority as per RTI Act has to be understood from the text of law and its interpretation by the judiciary.

28. The 'Public authority' for purposes of RTI Act need not be a 'state' as meant to be under Article 12 or amenable to Article 226 of Constitution.

What is 'Public Authority'for RTI?

29.The "public authority" is defined in section 2(h) of the RTI Act, saying: Suction 2(h) "pubiic authority means an.y authority or bor:y 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 Goveinment, and includes any (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantiallv financed, directly or indirectlv by funds provided by the appropriate Government." Test of 'substantial fund

LSlCl20t2/0007].4 /-t Page 77 'li/ 2\ \(ol|, et\ iO\ ,l_s, )

30. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Thalappalam ServiCe Cooperative Bank Ltd. & others v. state of Kerala & others [2013 AIR SCW 5683] stated:- t'substantlal "37. We often use the expressions "questions of law" and questions of law" and exptain that any question of law affecting the right of parties r,vo-,,d not by itsei', le a substant;ai iluestion of la"','. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.), the word'substantial'is defined as'of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually existing; real: not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.' In the Shorter Oxford English Dlctionary (5th Edn'), the word 'substantial' means 'of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; solid; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough.' The word'substantially' has been defined to mean'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.'Therefore the word 'substantial' is not synonymous with 'dominant' or 'majority'. it is closer to 'material' or'important' or'of considerable value.' 'Substantially' is closer to 'essentially'. Both words can signify varying degrees depending on the context. 38. Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist. (para 37-38)"

31.It has been brought on record that the DDCA's working is not transparent and there are serious shortcomings in its governance process. It is also seen that the DDCA has carried out extensive illegal construction in violation of terms of lease of the land as brought out in the inspection repoft of L&DO officials. The coufts also held that the game of cricket enjoys a monopoly status and bodies like BCCI are , carrying out public functions. Further, BCCI and its affiliates exercise total control over the players, umpires and other officers connected with the game and

LS/C/20t2/0007L4 Page 18 6? ii

a) -tl

no competitive cricket can be hosted either within or outside the country without their permission. However, it is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank has held that:

"Court has given a tiberat construction to expression "pubtic authority" under Section 2(h) of the Aci, bearing in inind the "transiormation of iaw" and its "ultimate object" i,e. to achieve "transparency and accountability', which according to the court could alone advance the objective of the Act. Further, the High Court has also opined that RTI Act will certainly help as a protection against the mismanagement of the society by the managing committee and the society's liabilities and that vigilant members of the public body by obtaining information through the RTI Act, will be able to detect and prevent mismanagement in time. In our view, the categories mentioned in Section 2(h) of the Act exhaust themselves, hence, there is no question of adopting a liberal construction to the expression "public authority" to bring in other categories into its fold, which do not satisfy the tests we have laid down. Court cannot, when language is clear and unambiguous, adopt such a construction which, according to the Court, would only advance the objective of the Act. We are also aware of the opening part of the definition clause which states "unless the context otherwise reqLtires". No materials have been made available to show that the cooperative societies, with which we are concerned, in the context of the Act, woutd fatl within the definition of section z(h) ot the Act."

32.To decide whether DDCA is public authority, we need to answer the question ;+hethei" DDCA woulu fall r,irder the cai:ego;y of suLrstar-rtially firrrrncecl, directiy or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

33. complainants contended that the grant of lease of prime land to Respondent DDCA at a pittance enabling itto construct Ferozshah Kotla ground and cricket stadium consisting of corporate Boxes, club House(s), etc tantamount to "substantial funding" by the Government to DDCA. They also argued that it would have been almost impossible for the Respondent DDCA to successfully stage or host any domestic, state, league, national or international cricket match in Delhiwithout Qrent / sale / lease of land (read Ferozshah Kotla s\^a.,1---at\oF O>. LS/C/?072/000714 dtI a Page 19 r- t )r Stadium) by the appropriate Government to DDCA at throw away rates and not. the prevailing market price. They vehemently contended that the allotment of land is critical to the hosting or staging of a cricket match or tournament; if there was no land, there would not have been a stadium or a match / tournament on it as a result of which there would not have been any revenues generated by the sale of such matches in the form of TV Rights, Gate Revenues, Sponsorship money, etc. For this reason, allotment of Iand at concessional rate is a "substantial" financial assistance to the Respondent DDCA.

34. At this juncture it is necessary to assess the value of the concession granted to DDCA by the state. The net area of plot is 14.281 acres. License fee for 5.491 acres ofthe built-up area @ 5 % of Rs 88 Lacs per acre per annum and license fee for 8.790 acres for the open space @ Rs 5500 per acre per annum, total comes to Rs. 24.64 lacs per annum.

35.As noted in paragraph 19 above, the L&DO had filed an affidavit before the Commission in which it was stated that the allotment has been made to the DDCA as per licence fee determined by the Central Government and that no concession has been shown to it. In this connection the Hon'ble Delhi High Courl in the matter of Indian Olympic Association vs. Veresh Malik & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 876 of 2OO7] decided on 7.1.2010 has observed:-

"As discussed earlier, grants by the Government retain their character as public . funds, even if given to private organizations, unless it is proven to be part of general public policy of some sort."

36. In the course of the hearing of the matter, the DDA submitted a letter dated 16.9.2014 giving Zonal Average Auction Rates of various zones. Of all the rates given by the DDA, the lowest figure is Rs. 99,608/- per sq. meter for the year 2013-14 for the North Zone. Going by this rate, the total value of land moasuring 74.281acres (57,789 sq.mtr.) at the disposal of DDCA comes to Rs. 575.62 crores. Calculated at the rate of 50/o of the above value, the annual lease rental of this e to Rs. 28.78 crores. However, DDA has

LS/C/2012/00071,4 Page 20 )1 also stated that they allot land mainly for petrol pump, gas godown sites on purely temporary basis for certain fixed tenure and there is no instance of any allotment of land in DDA for the purpose of stadium either on permanent or temporary basis; hence the licence fee for this particular use of land cannot be worked out. DDA further stated that the institutional and other commercial properties existing at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and other adjoining areas belong to L&DO under the Ministry of Urban Development.

37. In response to the Commission's query regarding the difference between the commercial and institutional rates lor L&DO lands in Delhi, the L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development has vide its letter dated 4.2.2015 stated that the diflerence between commercial and institutional rates for L&DO lands in.Delhi for the period w.e.f. 1.4.1998 to 31.1.2000 was as follows:-

(i) Institutional rate (Zone I): Rs. 88 lacs per acre or Rs. 2174.52 per sq. mtr.

( ii) Commercial rate (Zone i): Rs. 57,960 per sq. mtr.

Taken at the commercial rate of Rs. 57,960 per sq. mtr., the total value of the land at the disposal of DDCA comes to Rs. 334.94 crores. The lease rental per annum, calculated at the rate of 5olo of the land

value, comes to Rs, 16,74 crores. As against this, DDCA is paying a nominal licence fee of Rs. 24.64 lacs per annum to the L&DO. It needs to be noted that the above commercial rate of Rs. 57,960 was for the period 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2000. It is evident that land prices have gone up appreciably since then, which is also reflected in the rates given by DDA in annexure 3. Therefore, the annual rent calculated at the current commercial rates should be much higher than Rs. 16.74 crores mentioned above.

38. it is seen from the profit / loss accounts submitted by DDCA for the financial years ending on 31.3.2011, 31.3.2012 and 31.3.2013 that there was profit of Rs.5,65 crores, Rs.4.71 crores and loss of Rs.65.g7 lakhs respectively.

LS/C/2012/000714 \a\?\ Page 21 \,;' '$l,n I ";t iI'l '(t,qt /;, )1 Given these figures and the licence fee for land, as determined at market rate given by L&DO in paragraph 37 above, it is clear that the concession given by L&DO to DDCA is "material / of considerable value" without which DDCA would struggle to exist.

39. At the same time, it is lmportant to take note of the fact that the decisions of the Central and State Information Commissions, declaring ceftain 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. These decisions are as follows:-

(a) Decision dated 9,5.2011 of Single Judge Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, upholding the decision of the Punjab SIC, declaring the Punjab Cricket Association as a public authority (allotment of 13.56 acres of land in Sector 63-, SAS Nagar, Mohali on a lease of 99 years at a token rent of Rs' 100/- per acre, per annLlm, besides other grants and concessions from government bodies) set aside by the Division Bench of the same High court vide its decision dated 12,12,2013 in Punjab Cricket Association vs. State Information Commission &Anr. (C.W.P. No. 12367 of 2011) and the matter remanded to the State Information Commission to decide the same afresh in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. ca>c in accordance with law..

(b) CIC o rder No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00 0965/LS a nd CIC| SVl / C/ 20 1 1/1480/LS dated 6.2.2012, declaring India International Centre as a public authority (allotment of 4.69 acres of land on perpetual lease at annual rent of Rs. 8,442/-), stayed by the High Court of Delhi.

(c) CIC order No. CIC/LS/C/2o12/0oLt06 dated 30.8,2013 declaring Delhi Golf Club as public authority (179 acres of land allotted at licence fee of Rs. 5,82,520/- per annurfl5tayed by the High Court of Delhi. -at\on !o LS/c/20t2/000774 tr\ Page22 i3 Y iiLlJ ClC crder r1o. CICILSIC/2A!i/*01107 and ClCiLSiAi2a1U001848 dated Lg-6.2OL4, declarlng the Air Force sparrs cornplex as a public authorlty iallotment af 726.948 acres oi iand el nc renti stayed by ihe High Court of f-alhi 40. In the light of the foregoing anC in ordei'to avoid mulilple litigation, vre would i-efrain from passing an order at this stage. The matter !s adjourned slne-die, L:ra par:ies i,,r :;l:aie ihe il railti oeiarr- ',-iia Ii *cui.j, haw*t*:, =tj ope- at . Crmmission aga.in aft=r- the supe!-ior- courts have p!:cr'.lcunc=d their decision.

. ,t/- qJ/- -"/ I {Basa#t Seth} {sharat Sa,bharwal}

H r:forr*aiiora Cosil Hi issaoner Snfor:':natioil CommissiGner

Auihenti.aied irue copy: W,rqd ..

i,i:r. r4. ii. She:-ma) L=:*i::i-a r

L,S/c/ZAIZ/il00714 Page 2i3 ---C)*t CENTRAL IN FORMATION COM MISSION (Room No.315f B-wing, August Kranti Bhawan, thikaJi Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

File No. CIC/LS/C/2O t2/0001 74 (FULL BENCH) Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Dethi & District Cricket Association Decision by M Sridhar Acharyulu,lnformation Commissioner Brief Factsi

1. Srisubhash Chandra Aqrawalfiled a complaint on 8.6.2012 stating thatthere was no response from respondents to his RTI petition dated 30,4.2012 seeking details about a) land provided to stadium of DDCA at Ferozshah Kotla Ground, b) title, ownership/lease/lreehold/rent, rate oi rent, subsidy given, other faCililies, securir',. etc, provided bV GOvernment or State resoUrCeS' C) activities undertaken, eligibility criterion for enrolment of membership of Association, total number, various categories, d) number of voters, e) powers and facilities available to office bearers, f) number of mailed envelopes containing proxy-forms returned undelivered, g) number votes received at elections held last, h) system of distribution of complimentary tickets/passes during several matches conducted by BCCi and IPL etc, i) number of envelops with such passes for matches held till 30th April 2012, along with, j) envelopes returned undelivered, k) utitization of seats fell vacant due to return of complimentary tickets, l) relationship of DDCA with BCCi, etc and m) any other related information along with file-notings on movement of the RTI petition as well. 2. The complainant sought a direction to provide documentsfree of cost as per S 7(6) and compensation under s 19(B)(b) besides invoking the penai provisions. On reference from the Hon'ble Commlssioner Shri M.L Sharma, a full bench of the Commission was constituted, Complainant's case 3. The complainant's case is: the DDCA is a Public AuthoriLy under sectton LIn,1 of the RTI Act because it is substantially financed by the Central Government in

tma ud LSlClz0t2/0007L4 ./..+o a\ /;;./ ri\ ioi1" \a I c't i'-l i ' I :,' ti-''\ /:5't CENTRAL iN FORMATION COM MISSION Bhikaii Cama Place, Ne'/, Delhi 110 066) q (Room No.315. B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawanl File No. CICILS/C/20 t2/0007 74 (FULL BENCH) sri subhash chandra Agrawal v. Dethi & District cricket Association DecisionbyMsridharAcharyulu,InformationCommissioner

Brief Factsi

i.. sri subhash chandra Agrawal filed a complaint on 8.6.2012 stating thatthere seeking was no response from respondents to his RTI petition dated 30'4.2012 Ground, details about a) land provided to sLadium of DDCA at Ferozshah Kotla b) title, ownershlp/lease/freehold/rent, rate of rent, subsidy given, other facilities, security, etc, provided by Government or state resources, c) activlties undertaken, eiigibility criterion for enrolment of membershlp of Association, total number, various categories, d) number of voters, e) potruers and facilities available to office bearers, f) number of mailed envelopes at containing proxy.forms returned undelivered, g) number votes received elections held last, h) system of distrlbution of complimentary tickets/passes during several matches conducted by BCCI and IPL etc, i) number of envelops j) with such passes for matches held till 30th April 2012, along with, envetopes returned undelivered, k) utilization of seats fell vacant due to return of complimentary tickets, l) relationship of DDCA with Bcci, etc and m) any other petition as related informatlon along with file-notlngs on movement of the RTI well. per 2. The complainant sought a direction to provide documents free of cost as S 7(6)andcompensationunderSr.g(B)(b)besidesinvokingthepenal provisions, on reference from the Hon'ble Commissioner shri M.L Sharma, a full bench of the Commission was constituted' Complainanfs case 3. The comolainant's case is: the DDCA is a Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act because it is substantially financed by the Central Government in

LSIC/20]2100071+

-/ allotted to on it temporary basis for a period of 33 years w.e.f, 1.4.2002 and DDCA is req uired to pay license fee @ Rs. 5,500/- per acre per annum for the ( open space and at the rate of 50/o per annum @ Rs. BB lacs per acre revisable after every 11 years on the basis of land rates prevailing at that time. The iand is located in the heart of lhe capital city of Delhi and the fee structure

grossly falls short of the prevailing market rates and this can be construed as indirect substantial financing of DDCA. It is an Association under the companies Act, which has its ofiice at willington pavilion, Kotla Ferozshah, New Delhi, The object of this Association is to encourage and. promote the game of cricket in the Province of Delhi and cjistricts of Kamal, Meerut, Aligarh,

Bulandshahr, Gurgaon etc, The other objects of the Association are to flnance

or assist in the organization or promotion of Provinclal Cricket Assoclation and of inter Provlncial roumaments as also r-D promote and hold/organize, either singly or jointly with cther,{ssociations, ciubs or personsf cricket matches and competitions etc. Complainant contended: a. The Delhi & District Cricket Association is a "public authority,,as defined under sectlon 2(h) of the Right to Information Act for the reason that it is substantially funded, directly or indirectly, by the approp riate Government(s).

b. The DDCA is one of the 30 Member State Cricket Associations of the BCCI and has an umbilical cord attached to its parent National Sporis Federation BCCI v,rhich is responsible for the promotion and development of the game.of cricket across the length and breadth of India just like the DDCA is solely responsible for the promotion and development of cricket rryithin the entire territory of the National Capital Region of Delhi,

c. That in the course of managernent of their affairs, the BCCI, in consultation with ihe world parent body viz., International Cricket Council (ICC) and other cricket playing countries, prepares itinerary through the Future Tours Program (ilP) by fixing schedule for international matches / tournaments such as the ICC World Cup for ODI's and T20, Champions Trophy, Champions League besides Tests, One Day internalionals and T20 matches played between its member nations, arncngst others. Thus these crlcket matches ara played at various venues in india belonging to Member State Assoclations of BCCI like the Respondent DDCA (Ferozshah Kotta Ground) and "abroad. in addition to othe.r internatlonal fixtures, the BCCI through

LSIC/201?/000714 Page 2 co

Its 30 alliliated Menrber State Associations such as the Respondent DDCA, Punjab Cricket Association (pCA), Kerala Crlcket Association (KCA), Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), etc also hoids domestic cricket fixtui'es throughout the length and breadth of the country. All distrlct, state and inter-staie matches I tournaments, including but not lim,ted to, the Ranj, Tropny, the Irani Trophy, the Duleep Sin$h Trophy, the Deodhai tropny' and the N.K.P. Salve Challenge Trophy, etc are also hosied by the BCCI and / or lts lilember State Association(s) including Respondent DDCA, Not only ihis, ior the last six Seasons the BCCI though considered to be a "Not for Profit Charltable 0rganisation" is also responsible for holding an oui & out comrnercial venture namely the Indian premier League, popularly known as the "IPL" all across India including Delhi. As is welI known, auction of franchisee teams and players including renorryned international cricketers is also held involving billions of rupees to be paid to them for their respective participation in the game. For the aforementioned international, domesiic & league matches, BCCI,' DDCA ano various IpL Franchisees enter' into separaie comrnercial contracts regarcjing in-stadia righis, gate money, sub-leasing of stadia, etc, as is the case betvreen Respondent DDCA, BCCI and Delhi GMR Franchisee (Delhi Dare. Devils).

d. Not a single penny as ievenue can be earned, much Iess rens, hundreds and thousands of Crores, whether by the BCCI or its Member Association (Respondeni DDCA) in the absence of a cricket ground / siadia rvhere matches are held such as the Ferozshah Kotla Grounds in ihe heart of the capital city of Delhi. It is quite evident that the BCCi and its iyember State Association including the Respondent DDCA earn majoriiy of their i-evenues (almost B5-90 per cent) by selling various properties / rights (TV Rights, in-stadia rlghts, sponsorships, etc) of rrarious matches, domestic or internationai as detailed in paragraph 3 herelnabove, on the solemn assurance that they shall host these cricket maiches on a ground in a crlcket stadium rryhlch n,ould be vievved by thousands of peopte vviihin the stadium and millions across the norld through the mediurn of television, radio, internet, etc. Hence, there is an umbilical cord betvueen the BCCI and lts lrlember Staie Associations like lhe Respondent DDCA as all the stadia across the length and breadth of India including Ferozshah Kotla Ground in Delhi is leased out to the various Member State Associations of BCCI such as io the Respondent DDCA for Delhi. No revenue whatsoever would be earned by either the BCCI or the DDCA, etc in the absence of these .r ckei grouncls ; stadia sltuaterl in !rirne locali,ir;s made avaiiabte to them by various local State Governments and that too at a pittance of a lease amount insiead of the prevailing market rate. e, The Respondent DDCA is a recipient of Union and/or State Governrnents largesse and/or giants, inlpr-a1ia ;n the form of

LS lCl2012/00071+ ,,Si :r.\ Page 3 \t I -t l:. : i\ \ri:,\\o (' o'( nominal lease of prime land given to it at throw away prices and not at the prevailing market price for the Ferozshah Kotla Stadium. it is only because.of such massive infrastructure provided by the Government that Respondent DDCA is able to save millions of Rupees annually, But for this wind fall concesslon which is clearly in the nature of substantial indirect lunding, it would be almost impossible for the DDCA to purchase such vast land of about 14,28 acres built in the heart of the Capital clty of Delhi at the prevalent market price. be far iven if one considers the current Circle Rate, r,vhich is known to 14'28 acres less than ihe prevailing market prlce in the area, the said oflandatFerozshahKotlawouldCOmetothousandsofcroresof Lakh per Rupees and not a meager lease amount of about Rs' 24'64 annum v,rhich is currently being paid by the DDCA to the locai Government and that too for a long term lease'

f, Besides, affiliated Member state Associations of the BCci 1ik€ the Respondei,i.DDCA,alsoavailhugeconcessionsfromtheG'-vernment in tire form of providing them free of cost security while hosting cricketmatchescommonlyknovunas"policebandobast"'Butfor such substantial largesse's, grants and toncessjons or funding by the centre and / or staie Government it would be almost impossible for theDDCAanditsparentbodyBCCitofunctjonassuchleavea]one generaterevenues|othetuneofCroresofRupeesannually..Thus fruge amount of financial benefits accrue to the Respondent DDCA' test 4. On behalf oicomplainants, Hon'ble MP (Lok Sabha,) Mr. Klrti Azad, iormer following cricketer and member of world cup winning team ln 1983, presented points explaining the concessions gr.anted by Government, controis exercised by made serious allegations of lrregularities against the DDCA' a.TheDDCAoccupiesl4,2SacresoflakhsofprimelandinDelhi,forwhichit ' pays mearly Rs 24.64 lakh of license fee annually' Since 2002, no lease executed by MoUD with DDCA, for want of compliance w!t!--v911ous requireinenti listed by L&Do vide their lener t&.Do/Llii 17(32)02/512 dt possession of lOih July, 2002- DDCA therefore is clearly in unauthorized thislandthatisconservativeyestimatedtobeworthRs5000crores. b, L&DO have been repdatedly requesting DDcA to fulfill certain conditions, yet DDCA have not cared to complete the requisite formalitieE' c. There are.no approvals from statutory bodles like DUAC, ASI, MCD' Fire Department etc. l"1CD on d. Every time there is a match, temporary approvals are sought from pureiy political considerations- endangering the lives of 45000 sPectators.

".whil"noGovernmentpropetvcanbesub.leased,DDCAhasillegallYconstructedl0CorporateBoxesandhavesirb-]easedtlreseoxesfor l0yearstocorporatesuchasONGCandhavecollectedRs36crore, .withoutseeking'approvalofthelandownersieGovernmentoflndia. f. Nearly Rs 158 crore has been spent on buitding an unauthorized stadium for which no accounts are available. SFiO has c9.nflrS,9d:!.lat no tenders

LSIC/20!zloa07t+ 3

have been issued foi- work carried out/materials purchased even for non-routine items, ( g. There is rampant cheating of entertainment tax by pricing a large number of tickets at a mere Rs100 rryhile paying sPectators have to fork out Rs 10000-Rs 50000/ Per seat. h. while no member of DDCA can be paid any fees for doing any work for DDCA, many members tryho are close to the powers that be are betng regularly paid money. Even the learned counsel in present case, shri Balshi has been receiving targe amounts for fighting several cases on behalf of DDCA, which is against the rules, DDCA keeps on fighting with Goveinment departments contesting property tax, ESi etc and keeps paying crores in legal fees alone. pov"er with t. Benefit of Sec 25 Companies Act enables DDCA to retain dubious characters who misuse the Proxy system, and through the conduct of fraud elections, some office bearers manage to perpetu ate themselves. j, The DDCA seiecis players, and this activiiy is akin to a state function- no one can play for Delhi without being selected by DDCA to represent Delhi in various age groups, k. Any player who plays for Delhi, lets advantages such as employment in Government/PSUs/Private Seclor on the basis of DDCA's certificate to this effeci. A player is qualified to be feted With Padma arryards or even Bharat Ratna, if he excels in c.icket. L Following a Parliamentary Question (USQ No 2618 dt 28th August, 2012), GOi set up a commlttee headed by Regional Director (North) under section 209 A, vrhich has severely indicted DDcA for irregularities, financial bungling, ntismanagement, membership frauds etc. Because of the political itout of DDCA, three office bearers out of 27 have managedtocompoundthevariousinfractionsforjustRsl.33 lakh eich whereas they vrere to be iined approximately Rs 50 lakh each. Rest 24 office bearers have not even been prosecuted till date'

5. Complainant further contended that the DDCA had government nominees on its Board of Directors, it goi exemption from Entertainment tax, and lncome Tax, besides it was holding IPL with its own team - Delhi Dare Devils, which are attributes that cl'iaracterize DDCA as'publlc authority' under RTI Act. 6, Complainant htss relied on the judgment of Indian Olympic Association v. veeresh Kumar Malik [(2010) lLR 4 Delhi 1] decided by Delhi High coult on 7.10,2072, wherein 'substantial funding' of common wealth Games Committee was explained and concluded that the financing of the Games Committee, concededly a non-governmental organizatlon, is substantial; it is Eherefore, a public authority, within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act....-.". ComplainanI also relied on the .luogments in ffindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited & ors. dated 09,05.2011 reported as 2o11 (2) RCR (Civil) 915, Decision of State Information Commls 3315 of 2010 dated

LSIC/7012/0007L4 Page 5 Elf-iiY.ry@+:, o 12,05.2011, K, Balaji lyengar Versus Stafe of Kerala f IMANU/ke/2899/2001]uphetd by the Supreme Court of India, thereby hotding the Executive Committee members of the Stale Cricket Association as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Respo ndent's co nterition 7. The respondents case is;'the DDCA is not enjoying Government land at concessional/minimal rates, it is paying Rs. 24,64,4151- per annum as yearly lease rent to the Central Government and it does not enjoy exemption from Income Tax. The land allotment is also subject to the approval of lay out plan by ADG (Arch), CPWD and it is required to use the land only for the purpose for which it has been allotted and not for any other purpose, B. Learned Counsel for DDCA, Mr. A.S. Bakshi has presented following points: DDCA has been registered as an Association uhder the Companies Act, ' a) . rarhich has its office at Willington Pavilion, Kotla Ferozshah, New Delhi. b) ihe object of this Associetion is to encourage and promote the game of cricket in the Province of Delhi and districts of Karnal, Meerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahar, Gurgaon etc. c) The other objects of the Association are io finance or assist in the organization or promotion of Provincial Cricket Association and of Inter Provincial Tournaments as also to promote and hold/organize, either singly or 'jointly with other Associations, Clubs or persons' cricket matches and competitions etc. Impoftantly, g) DDCA is flot in receipt of any grants from the Government or any of its instrumentalities and that its affairs are managed by self generated funds and the grants of BCCI alonE. The relevant portion of the representation dt.77.7 ,20L4 is extracted below:- i. The respondent-DDCA is neither a'body'flor af institution of self-governmeni which is established or constltuted either by or under the coistitution, or by any other law made by ihe Parliament, or by any other lavv made by the State Legislature, or by notification issued or order made by the aPProPriaLe Government. ii. The DDCA is not owned by any one or any government' iii. The DDCA is not cantrolled by any Government. iv. The DDCA is not a'body' or'institution'which is substantially financed from anY Government funds. v. The Delhi and District Cricket Association is affiliated to Board of Cricket Control of lndia (BCCI), The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCi), headquartered at Mumbai, India, is a society, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registralion Act.

LSlC1201710007t4 i ,ca

vr, The Delhi and Disirici Cricket Association is in receipt of grants from the BCCI alone. vi!. The Delhi and Districi Cricket Associaiion is not ln recelpi of any granis from Government of any organ of the government and i'r-s affairs are managed by self generated funds and the qrants of ihe BCCI alone." 9, Learned Council Sri AS Bakshi also distinguished the DDCA from the decisions of the High Court relled upon by the compiainani. It is his forceful contention that decision rendered by ihe Delhi High Court in Indian Olympic Assoclation,

Organizing Committee, Commonyvealih Games 2010 and Sanskrlt School stands on its own facts artci the rato of this decision cannot be applied to the DDCA as the factual matrix of this case is totally differeni. in contexi of Indian Olympic association judgmeni the relevant portion of the Respondent submission re-staf ed as under: "7. It is also the i-especiiul submission on behalf of the ansinrering DDCA thai in the case of Indlan Olympic Associaiion decidecj by the Learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Couri vide judgnreni dt. 07.01.10 in VVP(c) No. 876/2007- by I laying down '.hat the orinciple of 'subsiantial funds' would deserve to be determined on the fa cts of each case,

I B. Ii has been held that ihe incian Olympic Associaiion vuould fail nithin the p u r.rler,,r of Section 2(h) oi ihe Act, inter alia, on the ground that ii is geiting subsianiial funding from ihe Government in as much as almost all ihe entire

I expenses in relation to the Darllcipaiion oi ihe players in sporis competition act. is borrie from the Government funds. The Hon'ble High Couri in its judgment has analirzed the audiioi-s' report (Pai'a 64) in relation to the IOA and has come to the conclusion ihat the funding by the Government consistently is pad of its balance sheet, and iO depends cn such arnounts to aid and 6ssist lravel, transportation of I sportsmen and sporrs manaqers alike, serves to underline iis public, or predominant position. \4tilhout such funcjing, ihe IOA rvould perhaps not be able

I to rvork effectively, The relevant podions of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge oi Hon'ble Delhi High Court are i-eprocluceci as under:-

".....31, The Central Government states that ii releasEd follovring grant-in-aid io I the petitionei'durinE ihe last lhree years 2007-07 to 2O08-09 towards. pai-ticioalion oi Indian coniingents 1n mu lli-disciplinary internatlonal sports events and hosting oi the muiiidisciplinary international sports events in lndia. The delails are as follows:

s.NO, Year Amount 1. 2006-07 F'5, 5.38 crore 2. 2007-08 t( 5. 2.44 crore 3. :008-09 Rs. 2,38 crc.re

Ii is submitted that in vier,,/ of the above details of amounts approved and sanctioned, IOA is receiving substaniial Central Government Flnanciai assistance and thus falls within the deiinition of Public Auihority under Section 2(h) of the ,"..'jED:-.

LSlc/207?/000774 ,l 'l', i'ci ,i'/ t& i.i.; I'J ( ( a 10'[earned councir Sri AS Bakshi has arso reried on Judgment in Nationar stock Exchange of India Ltd, v, Central Information Commission [(2010)100sc 146 l{ (Dethi)) and Delhi rntegrated Mutti-Modet Traffic system v, Rakesh Aggarwar[2012 (131) DR ]5371 for stating that ih€ ratio of these decisions is not applicable in case of DDCA as the factual matrix of these cases is totally different. Learned Advocate Mr. Bakshi has also contended that the rauo of the Kerala High court iudgment dated 26.10.20i0 in K. Balaji ryangar v, srare of Kerala [ivANU/ke/2899/2010] is not applicable in the present case as the Kerala High court had held ihe Kerala public cricket Associauon io be a Authority under section 2(h) and its

secretari and President as publr: servante by vir-tue of tire fact that the Kei-ala cricket Association was getHng financial assistance from the Kerala state Sports council, but as DDCA is not getting any financial assistance from either Central or Delhi Government.

11. Learned council AS Bakshi referred shri Anit chintaman Khare v. Board of contral for cricket for rndia BCCr, Appear No. 1336/ICPB/2008,

F.No.PBC/O7l266, Dated January 2r., 2009, in n,hrch it was claimed that BCCi does not fall under category oi section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because it is registered as society under the societies Registration Act and no directlon can be given to BCCI to furnish information. He aiso referred ' prakash to matter of shri om Kashiram v, Eccr in Fire No. CIC/LS/A/2011/001382, which rrras also dismissed by cic on similar grounds. He has further referred to orders dated 2ari iuly 20i3 ln BCCI v cic imposing a stay on further proceedings before CIC.

l2,Respondeni in his written submission referred to the relevant clauses of the Memorandum of Association of the DDCA to support their case: That A. the name of the company (hereinafter calred the DDCA,) is "the Delhi & ' District Cricket Association,,. . B' The registered otfice of the DDCA shall be siluated in the provisions of paviliorr Delhi at the \rr'iilrngton r.iotia Ferozeshaii, i,,Jew Delhi, u; ess oiher\i\iise hereafter determined by the members and confirmed by a court having . jurisdiction in the matter. C, That the objects for which the DDCA is established are: a. to encourage and promote the gEme of cricket in the province of Delhi and Dlstrict of Karnal, 14eerut, Aligarh, Bulandshahr, Gurgaon (hereinafter ca{red the area and for ihat amongst othei purposes LSIC/20t2/0a0714 i, Page I purpose of the association and [o provide pavilion, refreshment rooms (, and other conveniences in connection therewith and with a view thereto purchase, lease or otherwise acquire land at such price or rent and for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may seem expedient. c, io finance or assist in financing of the teams d. io assist in the organization or promotion of provincial Cricket Association and of inter provincial tournaments e, to prornote and hold either along or jointly with any other Associaiion, , Club or person, cricket rnatches afid competitions, to give or contribute towards arryards and distinctions and forthe purposes ofthe Association to promote give or support dinners, balls and other entrustments f. to establish, promote or assist in establishing and promoting and to subscribe to and become a mernber of or afflliate with.any other Association or club, whether incorporate or not, r,vhose objects are similar or in a part similar to the objects of the Association or the establishment or promotion of which may be beneficial to the Association and in particular to subscribe to finance, give or lend money to and guarantee the Contracts oi any Cricket Association recognized by the Association. D. The Respondents in their additional submission under paras 2 to 5 sbated that the objects ofthe DDCA, as perSection 25 of company, are not for profit and are completely aimed towards promotion and encouragement of cricket in the province of Delhi. None of the original subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the DDCA is a Government employee or associated in any manner whaLsoever to the Government. All the original subscribers were private ind!viduals. E. It is clarified that under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, an association having objects to promote commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any other useful purpose and not having any profit motive can be registered as non-profit company. This section empowers the Central Govemment (power delegated to Registrar of Companies now) to grant a license directing that such an association may be registered as a company with limited liabitity, without the addition of the words'Limited' or'Private Limited'to lts name, Mere grant of license by the Registrar of Companies does not lead to the conclusion that the company holding such a license comes under the administrative control of the ROC. It is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that such a company is a non-proflt organization formed for promotion of commerce, art, science, religion, charity or any othdr usefut object, applies its profits or other income in promotion of its objects and prohibits payment of dividend to its members. The conditions of license ensure that such a company continues to function as not for profit organization. F, Therefore, DDCA is not working under the administrative or financial control of any Government, Also, as per the Companies Regulations, 1956 (s,r,o.432) dated 18.02.1956), l,cense under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 is granted by Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Thus, the Ccn panies Rboulations, 1956 show that it is actualiy the Ministry of Corporate Affairs which has powers to give directions to DDCA and reference to the word "Central Government" under vi) and 4(vii) of the iri\ LS/C/2012/000714 .,I .:l ,.: l

\ir rRrr 1'r! ri;=6s)lk "Mtnrstry rnar of Coroorate_Affairs" is controlling or subsiantiallV DDcA' The grant nnun.ing in. oi ricense is not an .orinirt'ruiir. act but in ractum, a ( ri.*,rg i;l'juty since there is clairn,ilH:Tl.::,TJ.lil by any person ?,?"^"::l:*:ypnq, #;;;HJi;il:HHt:i:':fi.r#.o a drrecr* license from the licensing1l_. authority- ih.ru judicial ii:no apprication of mind or skil,s required i1 e u ti.urring 1.utin9- u, soon as the conditions prescribed by ,aw are perhaps, satisfied. ii ii rur tnis reason that nevei herd accouniable a Licensor is even vicarioust'y-ioi tie actions or a ricenrul.--ei' p., 'ramat uddin Ahmad,vs, Abu saten' uiii,iaai, ii.;ie,n 19171, a ministeriaract, aii )oo: ,. is one which a p.iron'pu*olrr in. giu-.; facts, in a prescribed manner, ri#rf in obedienceto the mandqte of a legal authority, without ;-eqard to, or the exercise-of, propriety ni, o*n irOS*;;1=r;., ,n. of the act done,^,rn ministeriai c;,,v nofl.,ing is reft to discretion; it is a simple, definite duiy. Clearly, the lrcense'granted under section 25 of the companies Act, 1956 does ;rot n.uun,-,.t gou'"inment wi, be vicariousry herd liable for the acts of DDCA done pursuanlio ti.- grun, ot ricense. That is the mere grant of ricense.doesnit why; gi". uny .;niioring authority to Government the centrar {,State qua the zu".tio";ng if Di;q. u.^ Now, merely 3 out of 27 members of th-e Executive Committee are Government nominees, and such r-.p.ur"ntuiLln ls not .ile-to being F-!-resentation by the Goverrrrnunion "u"n ' :!b-r!u1,!iu1 tr.r" Executlve commitree of respondent - DDCA. Moreover, the 3 Government nominees are to be considered as'Honorary members' ur p". (AoA)' articie 3g of Artrcres of Association Now, Articre 14 oi the RoA deiines ine rignts ii."*u.v and it is crearry stated.therein ,"rilo, thar uon. uu,oour= shail"r be entiued privileges of membership'except to ail the righr t" nor" or to contest for position of the Association,. any H Therefore, it is manifestly apparent that 3 Government nominees on the Executive Commirtee of DDCh ne*her [;. ;;;.; ;;'pu.t"i.iput" in tt,. general, administrative or financial 'the aifairs of ooci...ilre the power vote when the Executive to committee conducts tne oay-1e13' business affairs of DDCA. and Preliminary Objection

13. Respondents raised certain preliminary ob]ection: it is not disputed that this commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon craims of RTI Applicants under the RTI Act, 2005 in so far as such ciaims pertain to "pubric Authoriiies,,under the ambit and purview of the RTr Act, 2005, However, probrem arises rf the very iurisdiction of this Hon,bre Commission is chalrenged at the threshold bv the DDCA, on the ground that it is n0t "public a Authority,, under section 2(h) ofthe RTI Act, 2005, In such cases, the question essentiary becomes an issue of fact which can onry be determined on the basis of evidence read by the parties to the dispute. ii is again a setirecr orincipre oi raw of evidence tnai the onus to prove the existence of any iact ries on the party areging that fact,

LS/C1201210007L4 Cr

14' Respondents counsel coniended that, not only has the compleinant miserably failed io discharge that onus lo support his averments ancl allegations but has further, miserably faileci in bringing home necessary documentary evidence to prove that DDCA is either oi'rrned, controiled or substantially iinanced by any Governmeni.

15, Respondeni further submiited ihai pol.vers and functions of Commission are set oui distincily under Chapier V of the RTI Act, 2005 (sections Lg and i9) and none of those pro'isions confer any porler on this commission io deiei-mine the issue undei- section 2(h) cf ihe RTI Act, 2005. He referred ihe Hon'ble supreme court of India in 'chief rnformation commissioner and

Anr. v. State of Manipur and Anr. [2011(13) SCATE 460.J has also examined rhe scope of Section 1g and 19 oi the RTr Aci, 2005. The Aoex Court has leid dovvn thai; .3s:[. ] it is werr kaor.vn r'*hen a Drocedure is raid dorryn statutoriry and there is no challenge to the said siatutory procedure ihe court should noi, in the name of i ierprsiation, lay cioivn a procedui'e ,^rhich is contrary to ihe express stitutory provision, Ii is a time-honored pi-inciple as ear-ly as irom the decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1876)) 1 ch-D. 426 rhai i,vhere staiute provides for something to be done in a particuler mannei it can be dorre in th3i in3nnei arone and all oiher modes performance of are necessarily ior-bidden. [...j,, l6.Respondeni also relied on ihe decislon oi Division Bencn of the Hon,ble Delhi High cout rn'Delhi Development Authority v. centra[ rnformation and Ana [\U.P.(C) !27t4 of 2009 decideci on 21/05/20r01 r,vh|e quashing the cen'rral Informairon commission (r'4anagement) Regulaiions, zo07; has heid that:

"39[...] The Cenii'al Inioi'maiion comnrission is not a court and cer-iainly not a

body ithich exercises plenary jurisdiction. The Cenirai Information Commrssion is a ci'eaiure oi the statute anci its pov,,ers and funciions are circumscribed by ihe statute. Ii does noi exercise any po!,ver cutsicie the statuie.[...]

17. Plesl-cidert ;ir.:li\, i:ontencjed ..r :ji:i ine Hon,blc r i---t l-.ii tss to n lac,i3 ihe plenai,i inherent powers to determrne issues vrhich ir- is not statutorily empov,rered to determine or which are beyond the scope and ambit of chapter V of the RTI Act, 200 5. .,..,a-r1'!rii1\ i',,'r/ - .t-' LS/C/?01?rc0a7u ! -:! i:,: r F)E \,2 $ ,/-+ .;_]:\\.--t@, "-,,{' lB.Respondent made another r,rrritten submission 23.g.ZOL3 stating (a) the land belonging to DDCA is not a DDA land and it may pertain to L&DO under the Minisiry of Urban Development, (b) DDA allots land mainly for petrol pump, gas godown sites on purely temporarily basis for certain fixed tenure and the license fee is calculated at the raie of 5 o/o of the globalized rate which is based

on the premium of land on AAR for co.mrnercial land, (c) Taking into account the fact that the purpose ol petrol pump and gis godovln siies is commercial; therefore the license fee is r,torked out at the rate of 5 0/o of the value of commercial land... The respondents added a note; There is no instance of any allotment of land in DDA for the purpose of stadlum either on perrnanent or temporary basis, hence the license fee for this particular use of land ca|not be worked out. lt has been given to understand that the institutionat and other priorities existing at Bahadur 5hah Zafar Marg anci other adjoining areas within the vicinity of the area popularLy known as ITO & I.P estate belongs to L&DO under the Ministry of Urban Development therefore, it ta.rould be appropriate, if the L&DO is contacied in this matter". 19.As observed by Hon'ble Commissloner M,L. Sharma, in his order daied 23.t.2013 referring to averments of respondents: ' "As direcied Shri Sumit Gakhaq Dy Land and Development, Ministry of Development has filed an affidavii dated 27.11.2012 before the Commission in which he has mentioned the terms of license fee payable by the licensee i.e DDCA. The relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced belotnt :-

A plot of land measuring 14.281 acres at Ferozshah Kotla has been allotted on tem poi'ary basis to D.DCA for a period of 33 years w.e.f . 1.4.2002 vide allotment leiier dated 10.07.2002. One of the conditions of allotment is as under:- The DDCA will pay license fee @ Rs 5500/- per acre per annum/ for the open space and @ 5 % per annum of Rs 88 Lacs per acre revisable aiter every 11 years on the basis of land rates prevailing at that time, these rates are provisional as the Iand rates are under revision. In caser the land rates ai'e revised upward, the allottee will pay the enhanced licensee fee "Accordingly the demand was raised by the DDCA."

Along with the affidavlt, Shri Gakhar has also enclosed-a copy of the Ministry letter dated 10.07.2002 addressed to the President DDCA, which inter-alia, contains the following stipulations:- a. the allotment has been made on license basis for the period of 33 years. lrrin .\ tc --

Net acres ofthe plot: 14,281 acres

l. License fee for 5.491 acres for Buildup area @ 5 % of Rs 88 Lacs Per acre per annum Rs 24,16,0401- 2. License fee for 8.790 acres for the Open space @ Rs 5500 per annum ' Per Acre per annum Rs 48,9451' 3. Cost of preparation of agreement For Lease Rs 30/- ,' Totalr Rs 24$4!4LSl' Shri Gakhar has also produced a copy of the letter dated 16.4.1999 of the Ministry of Urban Ailairs & Employment on the subjects "fixation of prices of Govt. of Land for the ailotment to various Social, Cultural and other organizations in Dethi/New Delhi", A.s per annexure attached to this letter, the rate per acre in Central zone has been fixed at Rs 88 Lacs. It is pertinent to mention that the land in question falls in the Central zone it is also pertinent to mention that Shri Gakhar has submitted before the Commission that the allotment has been made to the DDCA as per license fee deiermined by the Central government and that no concession has been shown to it. (see paragraphs 18-22 of the order of Hon'ble M L Sarma)

20. The respondent further submltted that the DDA itself has stated that there is ' no instance of allotment of land in DDA for the purpose of the sladium either on permanent or temporary basls hence the license fee for this particular use of land cannot be worked out and further the land in the area popularly known as

IT0 &. i,P estate belong to L&DO under the Ministry of Urban Development therefore, it would be appropriate, if the L&DO is contacted in this matter", The

L & DO has confirmed that there have been no favors extended to the Delhi and Delhi Cricket Association ln the matter of allotment. Hon'ble Commission in the matter of Shri Shanmuga .Patro v. Rajiv Gahdhi Foundation (CIC/WB/C/20091000424), observed as under: "7, Adv Basu has relied on certain decisions of this Commission to buttress his

LSlC12012/000714 Page 13 i,*-/ €?iE^ \:i' ,j=l'l( i.)I fA#.Y \l *\ )!, b'@z'"s$ |,UlllL,llElcllc)\Jll\,l\iL]Lr.i'Jlvllll'v,,vyP.,.,'.----. ' wherein it was held that the Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWH0) is not a ground 'Public authority' uls2 (h) of the RTI Act essentially on the that the Society ( is an autonomous body and the fact that it received some lrants from the Government sporadically rryould not lend it the attributes of a public authority.

8. He also relied on this commission's decision dated 5.1.2008 in Motrd safdar Imam Vs Indian Jnstifute of Welfare wherein it was hetd that the Institute grants was not a public authority mainly because it received not more than 200/0 in aid from the Government.

i+. Rs regarOs the question of Oeputation of All lndia Services officers to RGF, needless io say, this is being done as per All India Service Rules, Only one AIS offlcer is presently working in RGF and his salary etc. are being paid by RGF and not by the central or state Government. Hence, nothing much turns on this . point,;'

Docurnents and Deeds 21. In pursuance of the commission's letter dated L7.o7.zoL4, the Deputy Land & Development officers (L&DO) wrote a letter on 07.08.2014,which contains the following reievant parag raphs: a) The lease deed has not beien executed with the DDCA, Land.measuring 14.281 acres at Ferozshah Kotla has been allotted on temporary basis to DDCA for a period of 20 Years with effect from 13,02.1986 as per the Deed of License executed on 06-09.1988 b) The license rryas executed form'tlrne to time and the last such ex[ension was granted for a period of 33 years with effect from 01,04,2002 as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment tetter dated 10.07'2002' Land Allotment deed to DDcA 22,The document furnished by L&DO with respect to initial allotment of land to DDCA on 13.02.1986 contains following salient features: t. Land measuring 14.281 acres was. allotted on License basis at Ferozeshah Kotla Cricket Ground ior use as a Club House and Cricket ground'

2, The allotment was subject to ihe terms and conditions as given in the license deed r,vhich includes : i) Allotment will be on license basis for a period gf 5 years. 1i) The DDCA will pay license fee for open area at Rs 400 Per acre Per annum, revlsable after every 5 years or from the date of issue of general orders revillng the rate of temporary allotment of open areas to sporis orqanizations, whichever is earl'ei viii) there shall be at least I nominee each of the Ministry of urban Development, the Department of Youth Affairs & Sports, Sports authoritY of India on the Managing committee of the DDCA. x) New Construction including additions and alterati existing building

LS/ClZ\LZ/000714. Page 14 in rn'rriting of the lessor' carried cut uviihout the prior approval shall not be juiisdiction of 'the MCD' land in questio" iliit the ( xvii) the '"ltt A. License Fee Dues for Fresh allott'i'ent: 400/- Per acre measuring 12'BB5 acres @ Rs' i) License fee for OPen area PA @ Rs 5154 P.A, up area 1'345 acre @- Rs 27920 ii) License fee for build Rs 36734 Per area 244'895 sq' meter @ iii) ffi;;; r"" rot Gs Godorryn to lB'12 85 il;r* from.30.11,82 I B, Damage charges Renewal of Allotment Deed on 10'07'2002 the allotment of land to DDCA 23,The--inen"*uf L&DO has renewed l which has the iollowing aspects: of india letter daied 13'2'86' President supersession of allotment house and l. in prtt or rano tor use as a club sanctioned tu*potuliiiotrn"ti ti t 33 y""t w e'f 1'4'2002' cricket ground, to' u ouiLo of given in the the terms and conditions to be allotment is subject to : 2. The tnurr also include the following asrsement fo' lease :"T\":"tt'.l;ti*nln

i) Theallotmentrryillbeonlicensebasis.foraRerlodof33years.annum' for the O Ri ssoo-p"t acre oer ii) The DDCA will pay rittt" i"" oeen space and @ 5 '/" ;;"' ;;; it*'-tg]-l:: fl:::i!'r:?i',*:"re[;: .;.rV ii V.-ts on the basis of land rates t'":",J:':"?r'iin.ln'.ut. tn. land rates are uno ;;J ;; provisional as the enhanced tp*t'O' the allottee will pay the land rates ur. 'uu''"i ADG' cPWD' aPProval of the lavoui bv the +it"":f'"E:. is subiect i0 the been ili) for the purpose for which it has iv) The DDCA will use ill"-LnJonfv pu'poses' not for any other , allotled and - , of urban Development' O" r no*i,{.I'.r.ti.itn. Mlnilr/ v) There shail sports authority of lndia on the Department .t vJ'i'iniiitt a ip"'-t' DDCA' the Managing cornmittee of the

24.AlltheobjectionsagainstjurisdictionandauthoritY0fClCLodecidethis emphatic judgment of the Honorable question do not stand because of the SupremeCourtinTalappaltamexplainingtheschemeofRTlActfaciiitating ClCtodecidethislssue,FinallyinPara5litissaid:'..,.Alithesame.ifthereiS anydisputeonfactsaStoWhetheraparticularSocietYisapublicauthorityor find out can examine the same and not, the .'.Information Cornmission whethertheSocietyinquestionsatisfiesthetestlaidinthisjudgment.,.Hence

Page 15 LS lcl2o7?10007:l.4 a public authority as per Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005'. The 'public authority,for purposes of RTI Act need not be a 'state' as meant to be under Afticle 12 or amenable to Article 226 of Constilution. It rrras the context of transparency and accountability, or accessibitity of its working to public that controls interpretation of expression 'public authority'' not amenability to judicial review of its decisions.. (Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. National

Ag ricultural Cooperative Fed eration of Indi a IW. P. (C) 6 1 2912007] 26.The "public authority" is defined in section 2(h)of the RTI Act, saying: Section 2(h) "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 lal made by Parllament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by nctificatic,r issued or order made by the app,;priate Government, and includes anY 'body (i) ov',rned, controiled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantiallv financed, directly or indirectlv by funds provided by the appropriate Government. " 27 , Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a significant judgment on this point in Thalappalam Seruice Co-Operative Bank Ltd, [2013 AIR SCW 5683]. Kerala Government has issued a circular No,Z3l2006 dated 01.06,2006 through the ,Registrar, Co-operative Societies bringing in all societies under the administrative control of the Registrar of Co-operatlve Socieiies, as public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Thalappalam Cooperative Bank refused to answer an RTi application and case nrent up to the State Information Commission, which held that respondent was public authority and that it violated RTI Act by refusing to answer. In a writ petition the Kerala High Court upheld the order of SlC that the Registrar has got all pervading control over the societies, lncluding audit, enquiry and inspection and the power to initiate surcharge prOceedlngs. in Thatappalam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. IJnian of India and others 20A9G) KHC 901 DB held that a society would be a'public autnority'oniy if it is "substantially financed by the Governmeni". The Division Bench referred to the Full Bench of Kerala High Court, which explained that without disciosure norms

LS|C|Z0LU0007L4 ,. t JX

-.1 (j

society KCS Act cannot be irnplemented and in the circumstances the cooperative The Full Bench r-nay lead to its own destruction to the detriment of society at large. felt that irregular managements should noi find a way to escape from definition in the ansrrerability dr accountabiliiy and said: "we feel the inclusive direcily or second part of the delinltlon of 'public authority' takes in anybody indirectly controlIed by appropriate Gorrernment"' Test of 'substantial funding' 23.Hon,bleSupremeCourtlalcidownthetestforpubticauthorityin of Kerala Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd' & others v' State & others [2013 AIR SCW 5683] as: privileges as such, 38. l.'lerely providing subsidiaries, granisr exemotions, etc', cannotbesaidto-beprovidi,.]gfundingioasUbstaniieiextent,unlessthe which record shorvs that the funding *"s!o substantial to the body practicallyiuni by s,ch funding and but for such funding' it would struggle to exist. (Para 37-38)"

29.The appellant relied on Honourab'e Supreme Court's judgment dated o2,o2.20osbeforeRTiACtcameintoexistence,inZeeTelefilmsLimited and Another v. union of India and Others" reported as 2005 (4) SCC 649 holding that although BCCI is not a "state" under Article 12 of the constituiion in India of India lt went on to explain the signiiicance of it in relation to cricket

as follotais : .,TheBoard.saciiVitiesrepreseniiirgihecoUntryarenotconfinedto lnternational forums only. fhe Boaid vrithin the country organises and Trophy' ihe conducis the Ranji Trophy, the Irani Trophy, the Du.leep..Singh aie Deocihar fropny anO tn" ru'f p' Satve Challenge Trophy' Although' these domestic .uLnit, indisputabiy only those t'vho are members of 'rhe Board goes to and/or recognised by it can take part therein and none else' This also fullest snow thai ihe goard regulates domesiic competitive cricket to the five measure and exercises ionirol over its members which represent the zonesinlndia,atlthestatefederationsbesidesafewotherclubsruhichai.eits members,ti'roofwhichiiwillbearreoetiiioniosiate'aregovernmental organisations'

directlv or 30. t'.lext question is u'rhether DDCA is substantialtv iinanced, financial ind.ireg$v, bY the state. The word '*substantial" connotes that the cannot be assistance contemplated in section 2(h) is cf such size / degree that regarded as meager. Punjab Cricket AcademY: a Public nuthoritY"'.,i; E}D\ f 'r')''----qz'r; Page 17 LSlClzoL?loo0?14 l(

3i'rhe Punjab & Haryana High court on 0g.05.2011 in 23 mattefs in cwp No. 15085 of 2A08, punjab Cricket Association, SAS.Nagar (Mohali) v. The state rnformatiop commissron & others held that financiar assistancefor infrastructure of enduring nature wourd amount to funding within the scope of Section 2(h) pcA, of the RTI Act. The one of the 30 affiliated Member state Associations BCCI, of has been ieased i3.56 acres of rand in sector 63, sAS Nagar Mohaii by the Government of punjab at a token rease of Rs. 100/- per acre per annum. The durailon of the lease is 99 years.commencing from 16rh day of June 1992. it is on this 1 3.56 acres of prime land that a cricket stadium popularly known as "l'4ohall Cricket stadium,,along rvith a club house has been constructed after receiving toial grants to the tune of Rs, 1107 lacs out of which Rs. 1015 lacs r,vere received from punjab Urban DeveropmentAuthority (puDA) ofthe Punjab punjab Government, Rs. 15 racs from sports council and Rs. 77 lacs from Punjab smail savings. Simirarry, prime land on which chirrnaswamy stadium in Bangalore is said to have been constructed is leased to Karnataka State cricket Association (KSCA) at a piicance of Rs, 1000/- per acre per annum. But for the said financial funding, it would have been impossible for the various Member state Associations and/or the BCCi to create a nationwide inFrastructure enabring them t0 host matches end thereby generate huge punjab revenues. It was held 'rhat cricket Association (pcA), an aifiliated Mernber State Associaiion of the BCCI, was a "public authority,,. The court explained principle of subsiantiai funding as follovrs: \uhat a) is not disputed here is ihat the word "substantial', has not been defined under RTI Actand has no rimited orfixed meaning. Forthe purpose of legislation, rt has to be construed in its ordinary arid naturarsense relatable to.the aims, fundamentar purpose and objects sought to be achieved to provide transparency to contain coiruption Jnd to promote accountability under the RTI Act. b) Taken in the context of pubric rarger interest, the funds rtrhich the Government dear with, are pubric funds. They berong to the people, In that eventuality, wherever pubric funds are provided, the word ..substantiary f inanced" cannot possibry be inierpreted in qarrcw and rimited terms of mathematical, calculation and percentage (q/o), Wherever public ..rubsianiiali, the funds are provided, the woid has'to be construed in contra-distinction to the word:'triviar,, and where the funding is not trivial to be ignored as pittance, ihen to me, the same wourd amouht to substantiar funding coming from the pubric funds. Therefore, whatever benefit flows to the petitio ner- institutions in

LSIC/2072/ao0774 . . Page 18 (r

the form of share cacital coniribution or subsidy, land or anY other direct or indlrect funding from diiferent fiscal provisions for'fee, duiy, tax etc. as depicted hereinabove would amount to substantial finance by the funds pi-ovided dii'ectly or indirectly by the appropriate Governtnent for the purpose (Paras . of RTi Act in this behalf. 74 to 76) 32. Delhi High Couft ciiscussed'subsiantial'vis-i-vis'public authority' character,

ln Indian Alympic Associatfon v. Veeresh Malik & ors, [\n/P(C) N0.876 oi 20071, decided on 7.1,2010, said:

50. This cour-t thereiore, conclucies ihai \n/hat amounts to "substantial" financing cannot be stra ight-jac keted into rigid formulae, of universal application. Of necessity, each case would lrave to be examrned on its own facts. Thai ihe perceniage of funding is not "majority" flnancrng, or thai the body is an impermanent one, ai-e not material. Equally, ihat the institution or organization is not conirolied, and is auionomous is irrelevant; indeed, the concept of non- gc '' ert:"nent crgai,izaiion ol::ns thai ii is inCepenCe'r:'rf ory ' manner of goveinmeni control in its establishment, oi management' That the organrzation cioes not perform - or pre-dominantly perform - "public" duiies too, . miy not be maierial, as lo;rg as ihe objeci. for funding is achieving a felt need of a sectlon of the public, or !o secure larger societal 9oals. To the extent of such funding, indeed, ihe o,-ganizarion may be 6 tool, or vehicle for the execurive government's pol)cy fulfillment plan. 33,Complainants contended ihat ihe grant of lease of prime land to Respondent DDCA at a pittance enabling it to construct Ferozshah Kotla ground and cricket stadium consisting of Corporaie Boxes, Club House(s), etc tantamount to . ,'substantral funcling" by the state Governmenl to DDCA. They also argued that li rvould have been almost lmoossible ior the Respondent DDCA to successiully s.Lage or host any dornestic, state, league, national or lntemational cricket match in Delhi i,,rithou; the allotment lsale llease oi land (read Ferozshah Kotla Stadium) by the appropriete Government Io DDCA at throur av{ay rates and noi the orevailing market price. They vehemently contended that the allotment of land is critical to the hosting or staging of a cricket match

Or tournament; if there \vaS no land, lhere,,t,ould not have been a Stadjum or a match / tournament on it as a result of which there would not have been any revenues generpted by the sale of such matches in the form ofw Rights, Gate Revenues, Sno nsorshio mcnc',/, etc. Fcr- this reasonl allotment of land at concessional rate ls a "substantiat" financial assistance to the Respondent

DDCA,

l-a Page 19 Lslc/zo|zl00071+ la ( .(

34.The antonyms of the word "substantial" are.inconsequenilal, insigniflcant, little, trivial or negligible. It was contended that perpetual lease granted to the Respondent DDCA on a token amount, viriually at a nominal price,,iargesse being enjoyed by the Respondent DDCA cannot be termed as trivial, negtigent or insignificant and it amount to grant ol substantial financial beneflt from the Government exchequer to the Respondent DDCA' Value of the monoPolY 35.The appropriate Government granted huge land at conCessional rate, value of which is discussed later. The monopoiy over cricket, granted to the DDCA is another valuable'state resource'that ted to substantial gains for the sports body, The monopoly gives DDCA unique advantage which is not available to any other NGO sports body io generate interest and demand among public about the test cricket, one day internatlonals, domestic cricket, T20 matches or the IPL versions to ihe extent of Delhi conducted and participated by it through Deihi team. without this monopoly ihe DDCA will struggle to exist. Grant of monopoly is also substantial fund)ng by the state to the DDCA. 36.In Board of Control for Cricket in India & Another versus Netaji ' Cricket Club & others {2005 AIR (SC) 592}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ' explained va lue of monopoly co.nti-ol over cricket: "80. The Board (BCCI) is a society registered under the :famil Nadu societies Registration Act. It enjoys a monopoly status as regard regulation of the sport of cricket in terms of its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, It controls lhe soort of ci'icket and Lays down the law th erefor. it inter alia enjoys beneiits by nay of tax exemption and right lo use stadia at nominal annual rent, It earns a huge revenue not only by selling tickets to the viewers but also selling right to exhibit films ive on TV and broadcasting the same. Ordinarily, its full members are the State Associations excepL, Association of lndian Universities, Rallwat Spofts Control Board and Services Sporis Contro) Board, As a member 0f ICC, it represents the couniry in the intemational foras, it exercises enormous public functions. It has ihe authority to select players, umpires and oificials to represent the country in the international fora. It exercises total control over the players, umpires and other officers. The Rules of the Board clearly demonstrate that without its recognitlon no competitive cricket can be nosted either v,rithin or outside the country. Its control over the sport of competitive cricket is deep pervasive and complete. 81, In law, there canno[ be any dispute that having regard to the enormity of power exercised by it, the Board is bound to follow the doctrine of 'fairness' and 'good faith'in all its activities, Having regard to the fact that it has to fulfil the hopes and aspirations of millions, it has a duty to act

Page LSlcl20t? 10007 14 20 r !ur\-, ser y. its actions u'"Ei'irea to-EEId6Ed-il controls the profession 'rittxtte'i, viewed bY higher standards' ualue of monopoly and deep and pervasive f 37,The Supreme Corrt'u*pru*ed the controlofsportsbodyoverthesportofcricket.inlatest2015judgment:

Itiscommongroundthattherespondent-Boardhasacompletesway.overthegame to the tftis country' lt regufates and controls the game of crict

Ihestatehasncicho:'qntobringanylatn.,ortakenanYotherstepthatwouldin the field of On the deprive ot-O:f"it th; Board's *onopoty 'ericket; either the Board to selectthe national contrary, tn. cou"in*"nt of india nur..i[i"ll by all concerned and applauded by the entire team whlch is then i.ecognized win ov mt nieneir of the dignitaries when thev nation includi.; ;i ti;;: has such home. lny'oigu;irutioi or entity that tournamenrs .,iO Uring taurels make game and iti arialrs and such powers as can pervasive cont;; tn" any """i come true cannot be said to be undetaking dreams end up-in-smoke oi which' till ir't* rutiriont ot tne eoai'i ;le cre"rrv private activitvl ?'?l:lYlt:i"ts'remain in the nature of the iiit" i"r.*unes to take-over the same, . such time solletv under the pubiic funcLio'i,,-'"" *ttititiscf'a'ged uy a fgit!:'ud sJv tn"t it tn" Government not only Registration oi'io.i.tiu, nct. Sutfice it-to funclions which it could in law allows an autonomous/private body to Jli.tlrg. to such a non-government body takeover or regulate but even lends its asslrtanJe very nature are public functions' il to unde*ake l".i,i,i,*,"., *r,i.r, uv their u." noi pubtic functions or that the entiiy cannot ue saio inat the functions to on tiie standards generally applicable discharging the same is not answerable judicial review of State actron'

3S.TheDDCAatsoisasimilarsportsbody,withsimilarfunctionsenjoyingthe a duty Delhi state is concerned. It also has monopoly over the cricket as far as toactreasonablyandfairlyintunewlthlheavowedobjectives.oftheDDCA.

PageZL LSlc12077l0007L+ pubiic duties / functions while holding such oflice(s). The said judgment passed by the Kerara High court was chailenged by the KCA and. the ( BCCi in an sLP before the Apex court but the same stands dismissed. 39,in a decision on 22ndJanuary 2015 in Board of control forcricketin rndia v cricket Association of Bihar, Civti Appeals No.4235,4236 of 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "The law is by novy fairly well setiled by constitution Bench decisions of ihis court but also because the question

whether or: not BCCI is 'state' within ihe meaning of Article 12 may not make any materiai difference to the case ai hand in view of the admitted position that respondenI-BCCI does discharge several important public functions which make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india.

, 40.In Marsh v. Alabama (3) 325 U.S. 501; t9 L,ed. 265 it was held that even where a corporation is privately performing a public function it is bound by the constitutional standard applicable to all state actions. In sukfidey and ors.

etc. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr, efc. (1g75) 1 scc 421 it was held: The combination of state aid and the furnishing of an important public seruice may result in a conclusion that the operation should be classified as a Slate agency. In America, corparations or associations, private in character, but dealing with public rights, have already been hetd subject to constitutional standards, Political.parties, for example, even though they are not statuiory organisations, and are in form of private clubs, are vtithin this category. Needless to say the CIC declared six political parties as public authoritles under RTI Act.

41,Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India & Ors. tSS (2OOZ) DLT 141 DelhiHigh Court

while dealing tryith a writ petitl0n chatlenging the banning of some cricketers as punitive measure by BCCI, referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which

observed in 1989: "The word cricket is a synonym for genHemanliness nrhich

means discipline, fair play, modesty and high standard of morality.', In ihis case

the coun has explained several aspecls of monopoly and its impact, in para 31,

LSlCl201210007L4 (r

a) it is the sole repfeseniative of India as a country at all levels of cricket in ihe international ai'ena and selecis teams for all representative levels of crickei ai ihe Iniernational level and has been recoEnjzed by ihe Government of India as the Reguratoi-y Auihority for ihe game oi cricket in India;

b) The tearn fielded by it ol=ys as India and not BCCI xI or even India XI while playing One Day international or Tesi l'{atches;

c) Even domesticalry all rep,esen:ative cricket can only be under its aegis. No representative ioui-nameni can be organized without the oermission of . BCCI or its aifiliates at any level of cricket; d) Iis aifiliates i.e., the State Boards hive access to Vast tracts of prime urban land ai hiqhly concessional and indeed nominal rates; e) By. v.l5us oi. hosting interi-;ticnal reDresentative n,,*tches at siadia available to it ai nominal rates, huge profits are made by gate-money, telecast fees, sponsorship and adverusing revenues. The BCCI's aiiiliates ai-e the recipients of Staie largesse, inier alia, in the form of nominal rent a^- rUl 5r.J-!-rr-. Lr ld .

i) No event incluoing even the R.epubtic Day parade and other events ancillary thereto gei the kincj of media coverage in the country as an Internaiional Cricket lvratch particulai-l.y thai involving India; E) Crickei is undoubtedly ihe mosi popular Eame in the country; h) The Hon ble Supreme Coui-r hao even entertained a wrii petition undei- Afticle 32 againsi BCCI for b3nning ceriain playei-s foi- a misdemeanour.

42, Supreme Court of India in Chandermohan Khanna v. NCERT (AIR 1992 SC 76) with regard to monopoly staius siated that it may be a relevant iacior if the lnstitution or the corporation enjoys monopoly status rryhich is state conferred or staie protected.

43.Sir Gordon Borrie, the then Direcior General of AirTracjing, while delivering

the Fifth Harry Sireei Lecture at the Universiiy of Manchester in 1989 dealing with'monopoly'quoted from Lord V/oolf's earlier Lecture in the same Series in 1986, icferred to Lorcl Denn;ng and obsrrveol "Lord Denning recognized many years ago that so-called domesric bodies like the Stock Exchange, the Jockey Club, the Football Association and major trade union have "quite as much povrer as staiuiory bodies... They can make or mai a man by

LS/C/2017/C0a7V '-)+l I ( t(

their decisions. Not only by expeliing him from membership, but also by refusing to admit him as member; or, it may be, by a refusal to grant a license or to give their approval (Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union tt-o72) 2 Q.B. 175, 190). Private power has also developed apace thi-ougA deregulation - the remoyai of many legal and informal restrictions on the actjvities that particular types of businesses may engage in. As ring fences have been dismantled, building societies, banks stockbrokers and others have emerged as conglomerates engaged in a rvide variety of activities, The potential for abuse of oower has increased." ...,. But lt is clear io me thai many private monopolles exercise a giant's strength, ihat the source of their power is not consensual and ihat existing prjvate remedies against abuse of their porver are inadequaie. So, many of the points made by the Couii'iof Apoeai for subjecting the Takeover and Mergera'Panel to judicial revievr' apply to powerful private bodies whether ihey perfornr requlatory functions or not." 44.Sir Harry Vt'oolf, in the second Hai"ry Street leqture [delivered on Febi-uary 19, 1986], saw advantages in private lau,emulating "the supervisory roles which so far has been the hallmark of ihe courts' public law role" fV/oolf, "Public Law - Private Law: Why the Divide?" (1986) P.L. 230, 238. "It have had three key poinis to make in this lecture. One was to demonstraie that it is important for private power to be accountable as it is for public power to be accouniable. Secondly, I wanted io exclore ways in which judicial su pervision over public bodies and the ombudsman concept can be usefully developed to aPpiY io the private sector, And thirdiy, I felt it timeiY io vrelcome such developments and io urge more of ihe same kind of developments, because there are concentrations of poiver in the private sector tvhich should be challenged."

45,Thus judiciary in difrerent countries explored the principles of iudicialscrutiny of private body powered with monopoly. Governance and transparency rules are gradually developing to make monopolistic power centers in private sector are equaily accountable, which has to be used in India where DDCA like organizatlons became extended tools per'[orming public act]vities of state,

46.In "Rahul Mehra & Another ri, Union of India, BCCI & DDCA" [2005 (I) AD (Delhi) 486, 114 (2004) DLT 3231 Delhl rligh Court elaborately dealt rvith monopoly oi BCCI over cricKei and cbserverj: "12. .,...... ,...... In short, organdies cricket in India at all levels - junior, senior, state., zonal, national or internaiional, is fully and solely controlled and ' administered by the BCCL Some of its members such as the Railway Sports Control Board and Services Sports Contral Board appear to be government / semi government bodies. ito player dreaming of playing for its State or Zone or India

LS/C/?o7z/0007L+ ( {o can be autside the sweep anri ccntrol of the BCCL ft, by itsetf or through its arms, se!ects teams, appoints ump,;res and referees, organize matches, toirnaments, imparts coaching, provides funds ta needy playersl through beneit matches, etc. The team thet it serects ta represent india is known as the Indian team and wears ihe Indian logo. Like\vise teams serect?d by the member associations forsay the Ranji Trophy are known as the State teams (excirpt for the Railway, ,ni th" sen"ices)' A Ranji match betvreen Delhi end kurnitrku is knovtn as such. Not as DDCA XI v. KSCA XI. The two teams represent Dethi and Karnataka respectively. vlhen a forei-an team visits India, apar-t from praying tesr marches or one daf internatianars, ii arso usueriy preys matches iuith stite teams and other teams. One such teaiz president,s is termed as the Board XI. Nov,t, that team may cornprise of arr th': ereven vrho pray for India, but it is not the indian team. Even, the BCCI daes not consider it to.be the Indian team. A player wia with pride, qly,1 !o1 lnOia ;qautd have only e fractron of this pride left if he were told that he does not piay for India but the BCCI xL l,/e have d,ryert on this aspect because an inexolicabre argun-lent v,ras advanced on beharf of the BCCI thai, in poini of iaci, the Indian ieer:r is not a nationar side in the sense of having ihe sanciion oi the Government, bui a side picked players by the BCCI amongst lidian The.teeming mi!ricns regarrr:it as the nationar teEint tie ptayers feel th-at they are playing for lidia and the opponent teams, be they from Australia pakistan, or ail know that they are ptaying against rndii. The BCCI oughi io take oi'ide in the fact that air this is achieved not on the basis of any statltoi-y pov/er but because it has ai-rogated this to itself and the Govei'nment has let it do so and of ccurse, most imlortaniry because of generar public acceptability. There is nothing in this. The only point are emphasizing 'r,rong ie is that BCCI dischirg., ihuru iunctions normatiy ought iiicn to have been discharged by-the sovereign state. Many of these fu.nctions are clearty in thc natuie of puaic-finctions, ri.,ere ar-e maiy which are ourely prirrate in nai.ure. Insofar as public funciions are concerned a writ p€tition rvould be mainiainable against the BCCI. Ai the same time, as regards private matters ha*in,; no pubric lavv elemeni, a rryrii would noi iie. 13. The BCCI has a filonopot./ over organized cricket in Indid. The BCCI performs the vital public i;ly and f unction of providing this opportunity, ... Dr. Singhvi, ihe learned :;eitior counsel vtha appeared on behatf of BCCI, submitted that na part of il.u: capital of tsCi'l is held by ihe Government; no financial assistance oi the -St,-ie is enjoyed by it; the Government does not exerclse any control over it; ilCCI is a non_statuiory body; no pubtic duty is imposed upon it by statuie; li i_s ., saciet.!, nothing but a,'private club,bnd as such issuance of a vtrit egainsi it r,, :-' c be compretety beyond the scope of a rticre 226 af the constitution of India, |')'tis argument is untenable in the light of the discussion above- j.. i ientian to the source of powens misplaced...... Tlie f act that the Government has no financial stake in or conirol over BCCI i:. iherefore not relevani. We are not examining fhe rssue .,State,, as to whether tCCl falls within the meaning of as defineC irt article 7?-. In..,, r..,e oeed ,:ot, Lecause tc vtord ,,sfate,, (oes not appear in article 226 .tt all! We are examining the question of tssuance ,,any of orders, directi ,.:ts or writs to person,,, Assuming that the BCCI is merely a,'priv,t:e club,, even then a writ could berssued to if

LS/C/20L2/00077+ 1.;1r':eEEryffifflt",:,greB ('r o ptovide, 0f courser it was for rentedying an infraction of a pubric duty or public function, 17. -..'.... The BCCI whichis the so/e repository of everything cricker in India has attained this "giint" stature through its organization, skiil, thle crrr" fo, lhu gu^, in India and last but not'the teast by the tacit approvat oi tae Qovernment, tts objects are the functions and duties it has airogated to itserf, Many of these are in the nature of pubric duties and functions. o{hers may be in the field of private law such as private contractq internal rules not affectino the public at Iarge, etc. Therefore, BCCI cannot be said to be beyond the swe'ep of Atiicte 226 in all eventualities for alt tifies to come, fhat is the certificate that BCCI wants from this court. r le are afraid, we cannot grant that. consequently, this petition cannot be throvtn out on the maintainability issue...... ,...... 47.rhe vienr of the High court oF Delhi has subsequently been affirmed by the supreme court vide its majority r:ecision (3:2) in Zee Telefilms Ltd. (supra) - wherein it has observed:

"Be thaf as it may, it cannot be denied that the Board does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian cricket team, controlling the acUvities of the players and oth'ers involved in the game af cricket. rhese acilylues can be said to be akin to public duties or State functians and if there is any violation of any constitutional or statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved pariy may not have a relief by way of a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right v,/ould go scot-free merely because lt or he is not a stare, jurisprudence under the Indian there is always a just remedy for violation of a right af a citizen. Though the remedy under A,rticre 32 is not available, an aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution which is much wider than Article SZ. 48. when the BCCI comes under the sweep of the Artlcle 226, vuith ihe same logic and reason, DDCA has to answer like a public authority for its public functioning. Stopping short of calling it'public authority', the apex court

established that lt has aLl characters of 'public authority'. Issue before sc was not whether BCCI was public authority under RTI Act.

Financial Value of Concession

49.Atthisjunciure it is necessary to assess the financialvalue ofthe land retated

concession granted to DDCA by the state. The net area ofplot is 14.2g1 acres.

ucense fee for Rs 5.491 acres for the buildup area @ 5 o/o of Rs gg Lacs per acre per annum, License fee for 8.790 acres for the open space @ Rs 5500 per acre per annum. After DDA has submitted Average Auction Rate AAR of land for

LS/Cl2012/000714 L: riicL I\di Liltj rL'iu submission ca /:'9'ze -ciatltlg respondents made a written pertain to L&DO under the a DDA tand and it may belonging to DDCA is not ( land mainly t::ltt*' PumP' Development' (b) DDA allots Ministry of Urban and the temporariiy basis for certain gas godown sites on purely fixe,O.::i"t

licencefeeiscalculatedattherateof5o/ooftheglobalizedrateatr,vhichisTaking into commercial land' (c) premium of land on AAR for based on the is pump and gas godown that ihe purpose of petrol ;it1s account the fact o/o of the out at the rate of 5 license lee is worked commercial; therefore the a note: There is no instance The respondents added value of commercial land, ofanyallotmentoflandinDDAforthepurposeofstadiumeltheronpermanent ortemporarybasis,hencethelicensefeeforthisparticularuseoflandcannot beworkedout.Ithasbeenglventounderstandthattheinstitutionalandotherwithin and other adjoining areas at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg priorities existing L&DO & I'P estate belong to popule:iy known as ITO the viciniiy ot the area if it rrvould be appropriate, Development therefo!-e, under the Ministry of Urban in this matter"' the L & DO is contacted is *iTti". t::^:tj::::J:ffiIj before the Commission * 50.Another task whether anv decided to ascertaln ".::il:;il;; based on which rease is DDCA' The Commission was given to the respondent substantial concession requiredandprocuredfromDDADethlDevelopmentAuihoritytoprovideDelhi' (AAR) for different zones'in Average Auction Rate . information .about especiallyinregardtothezonewhichcomprisesofFerozshahKotlaStadiumatannual mode of Marg New Dethi and about Bahadur Shah Zafar :t :1l'c^u.ltt'on did in spite of repeated reminders' lease property' But DDA' .lease rent on ihe notmentiontheexactzonewhichcomprisedofFirozShahKottaStadium' BahadurShahZafarMargNewDelhi.HoweverfromperusalofearlierClC verdictdatedllth]an2013incomplaintNos.CIC/DS/Ci20t3l000002, Commissioner Smt' Deepak decided by Hon'ble CIC/DSiC12013i000003 Sandhu,itisclearthatthisstadiumisr.vithinthelimitsofSouthDelhiMunicipal Corporation'Oni'haibasisCcmmissioncalculatedMRonbasisofinputs ..'''.,ir'.il.\ .''.-r.z---{'O\ ir us/c/zorzloooz r+ I. uy l.v]-1 gtvz-Jt PruyluEU LvttJluEl lltv I tcllt r-\vlta JLo\.lturtt uttr,JEt \rvu!rt r_vrl\_ rri Delhi, which is as under; (

fhe DDA has provided trryo types of AARs. F.2 (Misc.) 2}t4lAO (p) IDDA 14-,31,

by Delhi Development Authority Land Cosiing Wing, 16.9.2014. A letter No. File No.B-II/1(2)2004lDDA[4 Dated:- 21,05.2014, attacheci to the above.]etrer of DDA, gives the Zonai Average Auction Rate. Accordingly approximate cost of

land at Firoz Shah Kotla StLdium of 14,2d acres (57789 sq mts) and Annual Lease Rent can be calculated to be as follows:

Cateqory Average auction rate pet' Total cost of land as Annual Lease Amount @ rate sq mt./circfe per AAK. l0r )//u9 s0 m of 5o/o of AAR DDA 1i Rs 3,99,8892 Rs. 2310,91,85,421 ie R.s . 115,54,5 9,271 i€ Rs. 2310.91 Cr Rs. 115,54 Crore. DDA 2J Rs.6,?2,927 Rs. 3888,77,78,403 ie Rs. 194,43,88,920 ie Rs. 3888.77 Crore Rs 194.43 Crore Circle Rs.1,59,840 Rs. 923,69,93,760 te Rs. 46,18,49,588 ie Rate Rs. 923.69 Crore .Rs 46.18 Crore

Explanation 1: The figu re Rs 3,99,889 is arrived at by adding 12.5o/o (For year 2A14- 15) to Rs. 355457 [ Revised MR Zone-wise (Commercial) for General Commercial per sq m.]

Explanation 2: Circle Rate is downloaded from oificiat vtebsite, by the Registry of CIC.

http://rvuw.mapsofindia.com/delhi/information/rlcd-circle-ra+.es.htrrl accessed on 27tlr jan 25 by me at 14.15 pm. ethi MCD Circle Rates Finder

Delhi MCD Circle Rates Finder Please Select the Colo

F(oz Shah (otla Stadium

.Rates lcategory i\I'ard Name Zone Name l! !l -b",Trg^rj * iRs. 1,59,840 Per iC iis3 l\{eter I ,Square I ii

The MCD (lilunicipal CorpoEtion of Delhi) Rate Find€r helps user to iind out 'f,E clnrnt prices, per square meler, of MCO land available ior sale in the oelhi region. This tool contains the inloffnaiion of 2311 localities wiihin he city anc gives the user tire {ollowrng iniomation: All a:eas in oelhi have been celegorized inlo elghl tlpB.s . A, B, C, D, E, F. G, and H.

: S,re I'lo F.2 (l'1isc.) 2li4/AO (P)iDDA 14-'11 Ey Delhi DevelcpnEni Auihority LanC Costing Wing, 16.9.201a, A leEier No. File No. B-li/ 1(2)2004/DDA/ 4 Dated:- 21,05.2014, attached to the above lerter of DDA, about the Zoflal Av€rage Auclion Rate. ' Inis figure is arrived at by adding 12.5olo as appreciatlon (For year 2014-15) to Rs. 672972/..which is Zone-wise Commercial rate of 2014-15 as mentiooed in the letter Annexure B to the letter cited under foot noLe 1, . I Revised AAR Zone.wise (Commercial) for the year 2013-14, Annexure B to the foot flote 1.

LSlClzot?1000714 / *-( ?age 28 '31 o,,il I Q

SeEnember 20'14 NlCD Delhicircle iaies are as lollovr's:

A:: Rs.7.75.000 PEr Squae l\4:iei

. 3 :i Ps. 2,15,520 P:'Squa.e h4:i:i . C :: Rs. i,59,820 Pai Squ3ie l\4ei?r o D:r Rs. 1,27,56C P'J Squalg M"ier r E :: Rs 70,070 Per Sqr:;E i\4eier . F:: ,Rs. 56.640 Per Squ3re lr'leier r G:: Rs.462 l Per Square [rEiei . H :: P.s 23,280 P3r SquaE I.4Et:r

l,love,nb3r 2012 UjCD DPlhi circle iuies v''ei3 2s iollo s:

r A :: Rs. 6.45.0]0 P3r sq me€r : B:: P,s.2,0(.600 Per sq iilet:r . C :; Es. 1,33,224 Der sq n"i=i . D :: Rs. 1.05,354 ??r sq mei3r - .. e :: RS. i8i3E5 p?I-?g 0et:r o F :: Rs.4?,140 lgr sq meter . 6 :: Rs. 38,442 .ler sc. m.lir . H:: Rs. 19,351Persqm?ier

as {ollovts: ra{3s applicebie ca Utese weIe As Di l{o\.embsr 1. 20ii, ih3 UICO O:lhi circl3 ';aiegori:s

r A:: F-:, 2i5.0!t! Pei ;o r:ler . ts i: Rs. 13i,d0J P:r sq m:iei r C r: Rs. i09,200 P=i sl ii':t:r . D r: is S7.2D0 Persq meiei . E:: Rs.47,840 ??r sq irEier . F :: Rs. 38,640 P:r sc. m:ier . G :: F.s. 31.i10 p:r sq m:ier . H i; Fs. 15,870 Per sq .ietei u'rhich falls under to the lacation oi Ferozshah Koua Siadium is Daryaganj' According asRs' !'59'840 Per circle'C', where the rate-is ixii 5y the Munidpel Corporation Square l'leter'

the DDCA rvas required to pay 51. From the documents on record it is clear that Lease Rent for complete very nominal amount of Rs 24'64 lakh (Total Annual vlith an approximate rent of Rs Stadium) as Annual lease rent, in comparison Auction Rate letter 115.54 crores per annum as per DDA the Zonal Average as per DDA !iven Zone-wise dated 21,5,20L4 and agalnst Rs' 194'4 crores probable ross or not getting the Commerciar rate of 2013-14. This is the orobableinComeeachyearfrom|heDDCa.-lhainreansio..naiextentth|rStaie of Rs' 115 or 199 crores' If is subsidizing the activities of DDCA to thetune years the DDCA 1n possession of the ihis cjifference is multiplieci rrvith number of

Daoo 7Q LSlc/20121000714 ( o(

land, it comes to [housands of crores of rupees which legitimatery shourd have added to public exchequer. 52.From the documents given by rhe L&Do, annual lease rent is caicurated differently for built up area of the siadium and for open area used for hoiding

nationai, international, local and also commercial cricket matches including ]pL.

ihe l.as. rates for built up area (5.491 acres) are taken at five per ceni oi then Institutional land rate, i.e., Rs 88 lakh per acre (i.e., Rs 24,76,040 per annum) plus license fees for open space (8,79 acres) at the rate otRs 5500 per acre per

annum (ie Rs 48,345 per annum). The total of these two rates (for built up and open lan'd) is Rs. 2464385. [page No. 49 and 52 of L 3402 Fite No L i] B-i7(32 )r

53,It is brought to my notice that the whote land including open space is being used for sports purposes with commercial overtones. while huge concession being given in rates for built-up area, the Government has been very generous

in giving further concession ln rates for open area, though the DDCA is using every inch of land whether built-up or open, for sports along n,ilh commercial purposes also, It is also very clear that no sporls stadium can work urithout

open space, Therefore ihere should not be any distinction between buill-up and

open space as far as calculation of cost of land and,/or rate of lease for land is concerned. Therefore we have to compare the very subsidlzed amount of Annual Lease Rent oljust Rs 24,64 lakh as compared to the huge amountfound in the chart above. Even if we take the lov,rest Annual Lease Amount in the chart i.e., Rs, 46,18,49,688, what is being charged (Rs 24,64,385 per annum) is too minimal.

54,There is another apprehension, I noted, i.e., Ferozshah Kofla Grounds v,ras

originaliy under jurisdiction of South Deihi Municipal corporation, but it was categorized under City Zone, which falls under jurisdiction of North Delhi

Municipal Corporation, for the purpose of deciding circle rate. Further, lryhile

caiculating circle rates locality will be taken in to accouni, but in this case it was so pecuiiar that circle rate is calculated not in the name of locality but in the name of one body called Ferozeshah Kotla Ground. It was classified under category 'c' with circle rate of Rs 159000 per sq m instead of ctassifying it ...-_li)-.. : . . ,. ii,DD-\

LS/C/20t2 Page 30 ( (a

under Category'A'r,,iith circle rate of Rs. 7,50,000. If this rate is considered, ttthat is being charged will come to one-iifih of this rate.

5 5. Anoih er major factor that is left uncertaln is ihe exact commercial value ol the land. Thls cannot be calculated becausethere is no commerclal transaction of

the land 1n ihis pari of ihe capital city. Hence the actual value could be only a guess ivork, whicir could be far aSove ihan tthat anybody could have assessed.

Commercial Rate as per L&DO schedule

56. As per the alioimeni letter daled 10'h Juty 2002, the allottee (DDCA) shall pay the revlsed land rate. If ihe institutional rate is revised, the DDCA wouid pay and hence, ihey DDCA contended that there u/as no concession given to ':hern 0n land rares. In rbsponse to the:'-:mm:ns, the CPIO l"ir.,a.ajesh Kumar, and Deputy Land and Development Offlcer Rajnish Kumar Jha apoeared before me and represented that the land raies in Delhi were not revised since i999 and note yvas now under consideraijon for revlsing the rates by 10 per cent ior lnstitutional land and 15 Yo for commercial lands. There are 56000 pieces of land ranging from 100 sq yardsto 50 acres plussizes in Delhi which r,,vere ailoi'red to different bodies on diilerent rates. For all these lands the rates are noL revised, The5, squ16 not reply v+hen Commlsslon questioned them r,vhat is the jncome the state would be losing every day or every year because of non-revision of land rates.

57,To my specific query regarding basisfor arriving at a commercial rate oi land in Delhl, the CPIO, the L&Do stated: "A working group under the chairrnanship oi ISW & FA vuas consUtuted by Ministry of Urban Development for deliberating the land rates to be revised with eifect from 1.4.1998. After examlnation of the recornmendaiions of ihe said Working Group ii was decided to flx rate in respect of commercial land rvith 15 per cent increase ovea the land raies of 1994 - 1996 vuhich remain unchanged up to 31.3,1998."This means there is no scientific ev.:,ua[ioir of ]anct':aiue of Commeii- 3 rrat!re in Delnl since 1994. ri is patheiic to note that Government is dealing with huge transactions of land

LSICl2012/0Ao774 Page 31 ! rl: i {5 a transfers, without having any scientiiic varua,on of rand since rnore than decade. a This reflects indecision and inaction. 58,On ihe ,,,u, (accessed by me on 5'2'2015 at 16.00) the Land & Deveropment office n* oni.i.tty placed the schedure of market rates of rand in Derhi fronr 1.4,1gg7 to 31.3,2000, both residentiai and commercial. In the area like Firoz shah Kotia Maidan the commerciar rate is Rs 57g60 persquai'e meter and residentiar rate is Rs 18,4g0 per sq m. Mr Rajesh Kumar cplo in letier dated 4 Feb 2015 in response to query raised by the Commission, stated that in Zone I the institutional rate as Rs 2174.52 per sqm and Commercial rate is Rs 57,9G0 per sq m. Even the residential rate in ihis area is Rs . 3,g40.

Whether the Iand given to DDCA is commercial?

59.It is an open secret that the cricket, unrrke othersports, is highry commercial game urith ever increasing craze of youth for the game and commerciai sponsors queuing up for adveriising products. their Broadcasting righis and IpR rights arso fetch huge amounts. Any cricket incruding test cricket is commerciai. Assuming for a moment that crrcket is rike ariy other sport vrithout commerce in it. After the advent of ipL the sports sprrit is ceased to exrst and it has become a high-stake commerciar game generating huge income to every stake horder. "The iPL is the most-watched ru,enty20 reague in the worrd and is arso known foi' its commerciar success. During the seventh season (2014), the Indian Premier League's brand varue was estirnated to be around USg3,2 biilion,, according to American Appraisal ("Ctearing the fence with brand varue,,, American Appraisal

accessed by me on 5.2,2015 at22.44),atZZ.44),

60.Taklng into accounr the commerciaJ nature of IpL, ihe DDCA has tc oav rhe commerciar charges at the rate of Rs 57g60 per sq m per year at reast from the year (2008) in which the IpL is started. The difference between the rease rate paid by DDCA and the Commercial rate is as followst

LS/Cl2072/000774 e ot lan Io DDCA PeT So ]\{

Value oi the land Biven te D0CA CommeKial Rate per sq nl Residen$al Rate ,q m. lnstiiltional r3ie R! pe. S3,000 tu 56,970 Rs 13,840 acre, i.e., i40ri5.869 sq rn = 6t,el Per sq meter Rs 2174.72

Value oI land DDCA 5]7Ii9 l\1. Pre-cent value Commercial value Residential value (lnstiiutional)

Rs 12,56,74,894.08 Rs 3,29,22,39,330.00 Rs 1088744760.00

12.56 Cr Rs 329.22 Cr Rs 108.87 Cr

Lease rale ior lhe DDCA Land (5% ol total vaiue of laari per annutn) lnstitutiondl rote Commercio! rote Residentful Rate 0.528 Cr 15.461 Cr 5,443 C:

61, if the five per cent of vaiue of land as per instituiional rate is Rs 62.8 lakh, as per ihe commercial i'ate, annual charges rryould have been Rs 16.46 crore. Even if ihe land is equated io the value of residential rate/ the annual rent vvould have been Rs 5.44 ci'ores. Thus, the very fact that the DDCA goi land at institutlonal rare is a huge concession. The Goyernmeni is subsidising or indirectly financing to the extent of F.s 15 crores every year as per rates flxed for years 1998-2000. Prior to thai also DDCA received huge concession on the same lines ever-since the land is glven to them. The commerclal rate as on today r{ould be several tlmes more than the present Rs 56,970 per sq mtr. 62,According the balance sheet of DDCA for the year 2011-12 ending wiih 31i March 2012, ihe Profit/Loss is Rs. 4,70,70,202.15 (profit) Rs.1,42,46,309.00 (Loss). And for the year 20i2'i3 ending u/iih 31 March 20f3 the loss is Rs 65,87,622.31 and profit as on that date is 4,70,70,202.75. Assuming that the DDCA has profit of Rs 5 crore, profit will be wiped out and DDCA wilt not be in a posilion io pay if the Goirernment withdravls the ioncession on land rates, as , explained above, it would iall into severe losses, making it struggle io exisi and to ccntinue its activities. It is also clear that DDCA Cannot pay residential or mrri

The Control of Government over DDCA

63. in view of non-execution of the lease deed, the state continues to hold all sorts

bicontrols overtl-e land, wnich rryas allotied to DDCA, which hasthe license to use and nothing more than that. This gives all powers of control such as putting

conditions on usage of land, collecting damages for m isuse or abuse of the land, seeking share in the commercial proceecis of the land, besides having representation in the management also. The control lhe Government wields over the DDCA is thus deep and all pervasive. This control is reflected in the

efiorts of L&DO ofFice to collect damage charges from the DDCA.

DAMAGE CHARGES: 64.After studying the flle of L&DO about DDCA (page 170-174) I found that

department, 1n response to complaint of unauthorized use, was preparing a demand for huge amount of "Damage'Charges" for unauthorised constructjon from time to time on leased land (Four grounds = Pavllion Block, Ground no 2,3 & 4), As per the demand notice (draft, not finalized), damage charges for the period of 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998 atthe raie of Rs 98.41 persquare meter(per annum) witl amount to Rs. 906,763.8731- per annum (This is total of chafges caiculated for four grounds). (This is based on notes after inspection)

Ca lculation N o.tice

65.Calculation notice frorn Land Management Information System; as modified with pencil notes, based the inspection report of L& DO, the damage chargesfor different period comes to:

S.No, Inspection report date Damage Charges(in Rs/pa) L, 01.05, r998 146,770.92 2. 28.03.2007 53,408.00 a 21.01.2008 243,0 50,679.00 4. 19.08,2013 5 1,934.00 SU!4 TOTAL 24,33,12,79L,92

56.On calculat,:;r of iotal amcini ior damage cirdiges from 1997 tc 2013, ir is

found that Rs 24,33,12,791,931- was to be claimed by L & D0 from DDCA. This may not be the final amount to be collected, yet it reflects that at least the DDCA is supposed to pay approximately above Rs 20 crore.

LS/C/20t2/0007 L4 li; ii:r t,5\ i:;:i \? i ln:);:,.. i I :L:ir.i iI,, ) :-tril?, ; .- I ;.;''t' /l: / -_*..'.i,! ! il'ri:i >' ___L..--"l 57.This shows that lhere are subsiantial violations of lease conditlons as complained, for vlhich demand notice for charges could have been lssued. The L & DO submitted files to the commission. They revealed so many'startling facts, which also establlshed the 'state control', Some aspects of of those 202 pages oi the iile of the L&DO are as lollows: r In Page 15, there ls a reierence to allotment and one nominee each of the Minlstry of Works, & Housing (Now Urban Ai-iairs & Employment), Department ol Youth Affalrs & spons and sports Authority of Incjla on the l.i,tanaging comrnittee oi the DDCA, signed on 5.2.1999. Rates ior buili-uo area and open space are discussed at Page 49. File notes on Page 56 refers to unauthorized construction and mlsuse of the property

L j, DSCA noticed. DDCA oi:er-ed to pay darnages f'''" tlre same' . pa-oe 71: l',linistry oi Ljrban Developn'rent referi'ed to request of DDCAto topen consider the area under lhe'stands" for spectators as area" to enable them to get the benefit of reduced rate of llcense fee for'open ateo, . Page 113: refers io tne secretary, m/o UD vrherein he has requested to lnstruct the DDCA to cancel the lease deed agreement in respeci oi Corporate Boxes with various Corporate Houses' 29'11'2007' . PagB 117: Field siaff inspected the premises on 2l-'1'2008 and they have reporied ihe breaches (21.2,2008), This note also notes that the DDCA has not responded to three reminders oi Minisiry in 2007 for

iu rnishing docu meni/sanctioned building plan' .Pag€121:Dy.No1161/L-li-Bcit20.8'2009says:"'thatDDCt'vas allotted land measuring about 14.281 acres oh temporary license basis at Ferozshah Kotla crickel Grounds for use as club House and cricket Groundvideallotmentletterdatedl3'2.lg86foraperiodoffiveyears at a premiurr of Rs 400/ per acre annum for an open area measuring 12.935 acres (Rs i554/- per annum) for the entire open area and a license iees ar [he raie of Rs 7920/- per annuir for cuiit up area of 1,346 acres with some terms. Page 158 shows that finally an inspection happened on 19'8'2013'

Page 35 LSlClzaTZ/000714 ( a(

. Pages 170 to t74 contains Calcu.lation Notice to DDCA dated 1.11.2013 containing 13 unauthorised construction related findings in one set and 39 in another set boih signed on 6.11.13. . Pages 177lN to 180/N reftect si:veral breaches of conditlons and demands running into several lakhs of Rupees. On 7.1,1997 amount of

damage charges demanded uyas Rs 21,L4,78!/-, jnterest @100/o PA on the above amount from 7.1.1997 to 31.12.20lj Rs 35,91,651/- plus

several damage charges on around 45 counts. Thjs was signed on 21. i 1.13,

. Page 198 is a comprehensive note on DDCA, wherein it was stated: "lt ls indicated in para'{iii}, iv, viii, and ix, it iq evident that throrrgh lhe allotments nrere made to DDCA from time to time on lnstitutional land rates for buitt up area, Since it's an institutional allotment, comrflerciai rate can't.be levied on that. In vie\ry oFthis up to date Government dues be levied on institutional rates."

68,Notes on Pages 196 to 2i4 ended with date z4.l|,zol4 menuoned letters of Mr. Kirti Azad, MP written during two years on various issues of unauthorized

activities, misuse and commercialization, For a long time the DDCA \ryas not submitting the plans or documents for sanction in spite of repeated letters from the Ministry, thereafter they successfuily managed to defer inspection, and when inspection occurred and several counts of unauthorized use was noticed leading to preparation of demand for damages running into huge arnounts, whole thing was reversed, File was shuttllng between different departments. The higher authorities inclined to accept whole justification fonryarded by the DDCA managers to brush aside ihe complaints by Mr. Kirti Azad. The higher officers of the Ministry appears to be not serious while dealing with a big stretch of highiy vatuable land under the control of DDCA who were not respo,lsive, manipulative and misinterpreting everything to their advantage and winning

the ccnsen.li diiiereni bure;,-tcrats rvho dil y dallieo rarith flle trovement over years and years.

69.After reading the file, it appears to me that the.officers had a little care for people, time, public exchequer and public interest and were willing to take any

LSIC/20L2fi0A7U ca jusiificatlonforwardedbyDDCA.gnoringtheextensivenotingandfindingsby their own oificers' 70.The points of complaints against the DDCA are; compliance of a) no lease executed by MoUD r'vith DDCA, for want of conditio ns Fire Department b) no approvais irom statutory borjies llke DUAC, ASl' MCD' ,j gained illegally Rs 36 crore t{ith construction of t0 corporate boxes siadium for d) Rs 158 crore has been speni on building an unauthorized which no accounts are available e) rampant cheating of entertainment iax by pricing departments contesting il DDCA keeps on fighting with Government fees alone propertY tax, ESI eic and keeps paying crores in legal being selected by g) state function- no one can play for Delhi without DDCA Djrector (North) under Seciion h) GOI set up a cornmiitee headed by Regional financial 209 A, which has severely indicied DDCA for iri.egularities, bunglin9, mismanagement, membership irauds etc'

Need for transParency

lnvestigation report 71.it is pertinent to mention here about the Serious Fraud (DNA Exclusive: against DDCA as prominentlY reported In lvledia during 2013 1 Serious Fraud investigation ofiice hauls up DDCA for irregulariiies) frauds between November 2013) explaining the serious financial and election and a written 2005 and 2012.,In its repori to the ministry of corporate affalrs communicationto:ieMinisrryofUrbanDevelopment,theSFlohasaskedthe with severai ministries to initiate action against ihe DDCA in conneclion been regarding the matters. The most serlous ob.iection raised by the SFIO has been casiigaied for lease ofthe Ferozeshah Kotla stadium. The DDCA has also big-tickei not ensuring transparency in doling out contracts for non-rouiine' rupees have been iterns like generators. "It is cleai. that every year, crores of system of inviting siohoned olf rvithout caring to go through ihe transparent eic' l'10s'' tenders even for non-routlne items like generdiors/ sradium-'iruiiding, of key DDCA of the big-tickei purchases have been through'iront companies' and M'P' Kirti Azad office-bearers and their supporters," iormer Delhi skipper

Page 37 LS/C120121000774 ( a'f

alleged. The Roc has confirmed that action under sections 209, 150. 2rr,3L4, 309 and 29g proposed is to be taken against the DDCA management for various infractions of the companies Act. The news report arso rncruded a comment by former Dethi skipper Surinder Khanna regarding proxy erections in DDCA: "The DDCA erections are nothing but a farce, Ail the 4,294 proxies are controlred by DDCA office-bearers and their cohorts. Twenty-four DDCA members are residing at the residence of its vice-president cK Khbnna. If you Iook at the electorar you ro[, wiil find practicaily ari offlce-bearers having muitipie members staying r.vith them. This is the reason why these corrupt officials keep cricketers at. dista nce".

ation-offi ce-hau ls-uo-ddca -for-irreaula rities_ 191 2049) 72' Recenfly a ne\^/s item pubrished in the DNA on December 2g, 2014 saying that an internar audit of DDCA books has opened a can of worms. The issue was transfer of a sum of Rs 1.55 crore to three fictitious infrastructure companies that red to serious president action of stripping of or ail functioning powers including rig.ht to vote. Nledia rn'ranager of the DDCA was arso sacked for hording gnto DDCA,s cash. (News clip of DNA newspaoer

accessed on 6th Jan 2015 and also the FIR was Registered by former star cricketer Bishan Singh Bedi). AII this shorar that everything is not well with DDCA. There 1s a strong necessity of public scrutiny for protecting public interest, and the way the DDCA is indiscriminately spending the public money. btay orders & the effect: T3,Another aspect was brought before us: the Honourable High courts have issued interim orders staying the operation of orders of Informauon commissions declaring certain bodies as 'public authorities, under RTI Act, mosli')l involving -: the rect substantiai funding oy way ef ailocation ol,iancl, on concesslonal rates. punjab single Judge of & Haryana High court upheld the punjab order of state Information commission declaring the punjab cricket

LS/Clz0t2/000774 Page 38 (t Associaiion as public auihorlty. It v{as sei aside by the Division Bench of same High Court on 72.i2.2A]3. Giving this iinal order, the Division Bench has remanded the matter back to Punjab SIC to decide afresh appiying the test of Supreme Court in Thalappalem case. In cases of India International Centre, Delhi Galf Club ahd Air Force Sports Complex, the CIC declared them as public authoriiies separately, The Hon'ble Delhi High Cout admitted appeals over these decislons and passed lnterim orders separately staying operation

oi CIC orders. One point ior consideraiion rryas that should Commisslon defer the matter v'rithout declding and rryaitfor the Cecision by the Delhi High Court. i rryould like to point out that Hon'ble Delhi High Court's'stay'order in three cases referred above are inierlm ordei's given vvhile admltting only for ternp0rary period and they har,,e .noi resulied irom flnal adjudicatlon, Only final order delivei-ed iras from Punjab and Haryana High Court in Punjab Cricket Academy case, It is very imporiant lo be noted that ihe Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana l-righ Court remanded the matter to Inforrnation Coii-rmlssion to decide matter afresh applying the test of Supreme Couft in Talappalam case. The PHC also reminded ihe Commjssion its authorlty and duiy to decide the queslron, and ihe High Court did not usurp that poler of Commission, 74.After laying dor.vn ihe criterion for deciding v.hether a body is public authority or not the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated iaTalappalam case in para 39 thel ihe question tryhether a non-government Organization is substantially iunded or not may be question of fact io be examined by the authorities concerned under the RTI Act. The Supreme Court said in Para 40: "the burden to show that a body is ovvned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the approprlate Gcvernment is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by ihe State Public Information Ofilcer, State Chief Inforrnation Ofiicer , Slale Chie; iniormaiion Clrrinission, Cen;; al Public In1-crnaticn Officer etc when the question comes up for consideration" ("etc"=. here { t (- includes CIC), In this case the SC in para 51 very specifically slated: "All the

iudoment".

75.In thls complaintthe cIC is calted in to considerquestjon nrhether DDCA is a public authority or not which was referred to the fuil bench of three commissioners. The comprainant discharged his burden shouring that ,DDCA was substantially funded indirecily' by the appropriate Government. The documents provided and oificiai websites maintained by the concerned Government departments arso proved that DDCA was indirectry and substantially financed. The supreme court also explained in para 4i ihat there was an in buirt mechanism in RTi Act 2005 itserito examine whethera body is owned, controlled, or substantially financed or an NGO is sr.tbstantjally financed, directry or indirecily, by funds provided by appropriate authority. As mandated by RTI Act, as rightly explained by the Hon,ble supreme couft and also by Punjab High Court, it is the duty of centrai information commisslon under sections 18 & 19 to decide this question in this compraint. Now the case of DDCA is not before Derhi High court and there is no stay by any Hrgh court operating against this matter. only rrhen.clc takes some decision, there is a possibility of this case reaching Delhi High court if the parties prefer to challenge the order of cic. Even on this logic, a decision by cic is mandatory, Hence I cannot agree oi-l adjourning the case sine die until the final decision of the Deihi Hlgh court, because this issue is not before it. Hence, I find there is a statutory mandate on cIC to take a concrusrve decision on this comp laint/second apipeal. Directions

76.Thus, I find strong need for and require:

a, the se'ious Fraud Investigation office to conduct a ihcrough probe into all frnancial irregularities ol DDCA including the allegations made by various personalities and mentioned in this order and fix the liabitity on

LS /C|2072/0007L4 Page 40 ( (rr

persons involved; b, the D&Lo to Secui.e compliance of all condit]ons in the ]ease deed including collection of charges and damages running into crores of rupees take as Calculated by its department ignoring pressures if any, and necessary action as per lavv foi'breach oi condiiions, ii lound' c. ihe Ministry of Skitl Development, Entrepreneurship, Youth Affairs and sports to conslder evolving aliernatives and expiore the possibility of betier utilization cf resources and facilitles given to DDCA performance of including ihe monopoly over Delhi crickei for responsible its dutjes to fuliil ihe objectives, d. the governmeni concerned should evaluate ihe commerclal value of governmeni the lanC, wi,:ch is pending foi- more than it"o oecades, so that ofthedaywillhaveenoughinformaiionatitscommandtotakecorrect decisionsaboutallocationoilandforaopropriaieva]ueinpublicinterest.

77.I hereby declare that the DDCA, though an NGO, is being subsiantially financed by appi-opriate Gor,ernment indlrectly through allocation of huge land oi in heari of New Delhi v/ith subsiantlal concession worth thousands of crores rupeesandmonopolyofunlimiiedvalue,isthePubllcAuthoriryasdeiined uncjer seciion 2(h) oi RTi Act, on both quesiiond of law and facis'

78, Therefore, i direc[ - cannot be imposed a) the General Secretary oi DDCA io show cause v'rhy penalty against him for not furnishing the information as sought by order' appellant/complainant within 21 days from ihe date of receipt of this receive and b)the DDCA to designate PIO and Create necessary lnfrastrufiure to respondtheRT]applicaiions,incompllanceoflegaldutiesunderRTiAcias publ,c authoritY receiptof this c) io comply with Section 4 of RTI Act within one monih from dateof

ord e t-. appeal 79. To avoid muliipliciiy of litigation, i consider this complaint as second

tslcl2oTz/oalit+ Page 41 5r

and direct the DDCA to provide point wise information as sought by the appellan{complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

sl--- (M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Informati on Co mmissioner 13-04-201s

Authenticated true copy : {n4%e-- 4u | " -.--* ^rr' (Dr.M.K.sharmifrU Registrar

ls/c120121000714 Page 42 /L--/ *--t"./$,

L ( CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

It has been noticed that the complaint filed by Shri S.C. Agarwal under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2OO5 against DDCA was registered as No. ClClLSlCl2Ot2/OOO714. Thereafter, the same complaint was again registered separately as No. ClCILSICI2OnIAa;J944. tn Fijc No. CrCILSIC2OL2IOOATi.4 a Bench comprising of IC (BS), IC (SH) and IC (SA) was constituted to hear the matter. The matter was heard by the Bench from time to time and in its Interim order dated 17.07.2014, the Bench has referred both the File Nos while adjourning the matter to another date. Thereafter, the Bench, after hearing the matter, passed. 2 Orders on 13.04.2015, one pronounced by IC (BS) and IC (SH) and the other by IC (SA). But, in both the Orders, File bearing No. CIC/LS/C|2O|Z|OOO944 was not mentioned, as a result, the same is showing as pending in the records.

It is therefore submitted for necessary Orders for treating the case bearing File No. crclLslcl2ot2looog44 as closed. in view of an Order already pronounced in Fiie No. uc I LS I C I 201.2 I OOOT 14.

Registrar 28.O9.20t7 J\\") A*^ lza Lo r ,rf= - Y ^-r\l A* lz-\loa r )r'