Correspondence regarding a compounding application under FEMA of M/S S.Tel Pvt. Ltd. denied u/s 8(1)(d) – information pertains to cases that have already been decided – Directorate of Enforcement is listed in the second schedule – CIC: denial upheld
14 Aug, 2013ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 13.12.2011 seeking information and correspondence in respect of a compounding application under FEMA of M/S S.Tel Pvt. Limited.
2. The PIO responded on 29.12.2011 and denied the information to the appellant 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; of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal on 31.01.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 29.02.2012 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 22.05.2012 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant's representative participated in the hearing personally and the respondent participated through video conferencing.
4. The appellant's representative stated that the information being sought is already in the public domain. It pertains to cases that have already been decided. The appellant's representative also said that the CPIO response to the RTI application does not give the reason why the information has been denied.
5. The respondent referred to the RTI application and stated that the information is obviously exempt from disclosure under the relevant exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act, more specifically 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; and (e) because the information is held by the RBI in a fiduciary relationship and also taking into account the norms of commercial confidence followed by the banking institutions.
6. The respondent further stated that there is an additional feature, i.e., that the matter pertains to correspondence exchanged between the RBI and the Directorate of Enforcement (DOE). The respondent stated that the DOE is one of the organizations that is covered by the provisions of section 24 and the second schedule that pertains to the organizations where the Act did not apply.
7. The respondent by way of background elaborated that the communication between the RBI and the DOE pertained to certain applications made by a party with which the appellant in the present case has no connection. The respondent stated that the correspondence between the RBI and DOE essentially pertained to certain applications for compounding taking into account that the relevant law allowed compounding in the event of contravention. The respondent said that this is third party information, and also of commercial confidence and fiduciary in nature, and hence the respondent had denied the information.
8. The information clearly falls within the ambit of the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act. The approach of the respondent in the matter is in conformity with the Act. There is no need for the Commission to interfere in the matter.
Decision:
9. The order of the first appellate authority is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Trideep Pais v. Reserve Bank of India, Foreign Exchange Deptt in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000344/03265