Communications made by the Chairman, HDC with District Magistrate, SP, West Bengal government and Ministry of Shipping on the issue of labour unrest at HDC was denied u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: denial upheld as issue of law & order situation prevailing
12 Nov, 2013ORDER
1. The facility of video conference has been arranged for both the parties. Appellant is present for the hearing. The respondent is being represented by S. Pradhan (CPIO).
2. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 1.10.2012 addressed to the CPIO, Haldia Dock Complex seeking information on (iv) points. The appellant has mainly sought copies of communications made by the Chairman, KoPT/Dy. Chairman, Haldia Dock Complex (HDC) with District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, copies of communication between Chairman HDC and State Government of West Bengal and copies of communication between Chairman HDC and Ministry of Shipping on the issue of labour unrest at HDC. At last point in the application the appellant has sought the copy of report of the District Intelligence Branch, Purba Medinipur on the basis of which Shri Ramakant Burman, Junior Assistant Manager (Admn), HDC has been transferred to Hydraulic Study Department of Kolkata Dock System. The RTI application was transferred to Kolkata Port Trust vide letter dated 4.10.2012.
3. The CPIO, Kolkata Port Trust replied vide letter dated 5.11.2012 stating that
“the information sought by you cannot be provided as per exemption from disclosure permissible u/s 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of RTI Act, 2005. If aggrieved with denial of information, you may prefer an appeal before the first appellate authority, Shri Manish jain, Dy. Chairman.”
4. The appellant filed first appeal dated 9.11.2012. The first appellate authority vide order dated 26.11.2012 held as under being reproduced below:
“Further, the applicant had already annexed some of the documents to a writ petition moved by him in the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta. A copy of the CPIO's reply dated 5.11.2012 was handed over to the appellant on receipt of which the appellant reiterated his appeal. As appellate authority under the RTI Act, the undersigned sought confirmation from the appellant whether he would like to proceed with his appeal in this forum in view of several allegations of malice and malafide motive attributed to him in three writ petitions moved by the RTI applicant recently. The applicant / appellant exercised his option of his RTI appeal being disposed by a different Appellate Authority. Order In view of the objection of the applicant / appellant, I feel that ends of justice will be met if the RTI appeal is disposed by a superior authority and accordingly, propose to place the matter before the Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata at their next meeting to be held on 29.11.2012. The appellant may present his case personally at 2.00 p.m.”
5. The appellant did not appear before the first appellate authority. However, the Board of Trustees resolved to have the RTI application to be disposed by the first appellate authority in accordance with the RTI Act. However, the FAA vide order dated 16.1.2013 held as under being reproduced below:
"CPIO further informed that during the period of one month within which response to the application was to be given, the labour unrest situation at HDC was being covered extensively in the local print and electronic media. Considerable amount of information relating to security of the port, which is a notified prohibited place under the Official Secrets Act, was being discussed in the public domain with deep political overtones. There were reports and complaints of intimidation and abduction. The applicant also filed three writ petitions in the Hon'ble Court Calcutta, inter alia, covering the labour unrest situation at Haldia. He also annexed some of the documents sought under RTI Act in his writ petitions. Considering the effect on the economic interest of the port due to such negative publicity and also that the information sought to be brought in the public domain through the RTI Act could also act as an incentive for incitement of offence, especially in view of the complaint of the abduction etc. the CPIO considered it prudent to deny the information under clause 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act. Denial of information was communicated to the applicant on 5.11.2012. In the absence of any submission from the appellant, I tend to agree with the submissions of the CPIO"
6. During the hearing, the respondent has apprised the Commission that the law and order situation is still continuing. A case on related issue of labour unrest is still pending in court. The respondent apprised that the issue involves labour unrest of about 400-500 labourers which would get further aggravated by disclosing the information sought by the appellant.
7. The Commission concurs with the view taken by the CPIO and hence finds no reason to interfere. The disclosure of the communication between the Chairman HDC and various authorities regarding this very issue of law & order situation prevailing over labour unrest would attract section 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; of the RTI Act in the present stage. The security issue is also involved as the respondent has stated that various cases of abduction have been reported. Such issue/s may have consequences on the economic interest of the port as well. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Sushma Singh
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ramakant Burman v. Kolkata Port Trust in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000571