Appellant: The PIO has incorrectly denied the copy of office note, minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors in which National Pension Scheme was approved - CIC: Provide the information after severing the personal information of third parties
25 Apr, 2018ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), Lucknow, seeking information on seven points pertaining to the letter no. F.No. 9/2/1/2012-IR dated 07.02.2012 written by the Dept. of Financial Services (DoFS), Ministry of Finance to the GM-HRDD, SIDBI for implementation of National Pension Scheme (NPS) w.e.f 01.01.2012, including, inter-alia,
(i) whether SIDBI has implemented the scheme, if yes, the date of implementation of the said scheme;
(ii) the copy of office note placed before the approving authority for approval of the scheme along with the copy of approved office note; and
(iii) whether the approval seeking note was granted/sanctioned by the BoD in Board Meeting, if yes, furnish the note placed before the BoD and the minutes of the meeting.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the FAA has erred in law and incorrectly denied the information sought by him under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act under point nos. (e) and (f) of the RTI application. The appellant contended that the NPS scheme has already been implemented by the Board on 23.11.2012 and decision of the Board of Directors (BoD) regarding the Scheme has been completed. Hence, in view of the Commission’s decision dated 28.03.2016 in Sunil Kumar Johar vs. NTPC, Delhi which was applicable to his case, the information sought by him ought to be disclosed. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the copy of the Board note dated 23.11.2016 and rest of the documents sought by him in point nos. (e) and (f) of the RTI application.
Hearing:
3. The appellant’s representative, Shri Vinod Kumar was present in person. The respondent, Shri S.P. Singh, General Manager and CPIO, SIDBI Lucknow, attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The appellant attended the hearing late.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has incorrectly denied the copy of office note, minutes of meeting of the BoD in which NPS was approved/sanctioned by the Board as sought by him under point nos. (e) and (f) of his RTI application under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that as per the internal disclosure policy of the Bank, Board memorandum and the minutes thereof are confidential documents of the Bank and larger public interest do not warrant disclosure of the same. Hence, the information sought by the appellant under point nos. (e) and (f) of his RTI application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant is an ex-employee of the Bank and has all the relevant information with him.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant had sought copies of office note, approved office note of the competent authority for approval of NPS, Board note and minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors in which NPS was sanctioned under points (e) and (f) of his RTI application. The Commission further observes that the pension scheme was approved by the Board on 23.11.2012 qua the benefit of its employees which was implemented w.e.f. 28.02.2013. Hence, there is sufficient public interest in the matter that justifies disclosure of the information sought by the appellant. An employee has all the right to seek the documents on the basis of which the said scheme was implemented. Moreover, the respondent could not establish as to how the disclosure of the board resolution, minutes, etc., could harm the competitive interests of the respondent Bank when all the procedure relating to the implementation of the Scheme in SIDBI has been completed by 2013.
7. This Commission in the case of Sunil Kumar Johar vs. NTPC, Delhi (F.No. CIC/YA/A/2015/902350, decision dated 28.03.2016) had observed as hereunder:
“…… the Commission notes that the appellant has sought copy of the Board Note, on grounds of public interest since it was on the basis of this, the pension scheme was approved in a meeting of Board of Director. The respondent meanwhile have sought exemption u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & (e) of the RTI Act for denying the same. It is a fact that the pension scheme adopted by the Board's Resolution in 1994 was implemented with effect from 09.10.1997 and later amended by the Pension Trust vide circular dated 02.02.2003, impacting the amount payable to the pensioners. All possible action with respect to Board's Resolutions regarding pension scheme approved by the Board in 1994 have been completed, therefore it does not stand reason as to how the disclosure of the Board note i.e. note prepared by the concerned unit/department for the benefit of deliberations by the Board in 1994, can harm the competitive interest of NTPC. Further, the Board note is ordinarily a note prepared for the perusal of the Board of Directors for taking a decision during a meeting of the Board of Directors; it does not reflect the views of the individual members which would form a part of the minutes of the board meeting.
In a similar case adjudicated by the Commission in the case of M.S. Sidhu Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, the Commission had observed as under:-
". . .5. We do not agree with the contention of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority that the Board note on VRS can be withheld under any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act.”
8. Further, in another decision dated 28th February 2014 in Shri Shekhar Purushotam Kannao v. New India Assurance Co Ltd. in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000614/MP, the Commission had directed the respondent as under:
“to check with the Company Secretary and provide the information to the appellant regarding the minutes of the Board meetings held between 1/10/2010- 1/12/2012 in which the decisions were taken regarding the benefits to be given to ex-employees of the public authority under the 2010 Notification issed by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India”
9. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to furnish complete information as sought under point nos. (e) and (f) of the RTI application to the appellant, after severing the personal information of third parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Onkar Nath v. Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) in Decision No. CIC/SIDBI/A/2017/107543, dated 28.03.2018