Information regarding the “Assignment Deed” executed by SASF in favour of M/s. V. R. Packers was denied u/s 8(1)(d), 8(1)(c) & 8(1)(j) - CIC: no justification given by PIO for applying exemption sections; matter remanded back to issue a speaking order
5 Jun, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri P. Balachandar, submitted RTI application dated 5 October 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), Mumbai; seeking information regarding Deed of Assignment executed by the public authority in favour of M/s. V. R. Packers assigning the loans and securities held by the public authority in respect of loans granted to Metafilms (India) Ltd.
2. Vide reply dated 3 November 2012, CPIO denied information 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; , (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 5 December, 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), alleging that he had not been provided correct information by the CPIO concerned. No order had been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri P. Balachandar, was represented by Shri K. Balasubramanium at Chennai. A copy of the authority letter signed by the appellant had been provided to the CPIO. The respondents, Shri Aditya Gajbhiye, CPIO, Shri Y.A. Mankad, FAA and Shri D. Vijaya Dev, made submissions from Mumbai.
5. The appellant submitted that no response apart from the CPIOs reply had been provided by the respondents despite him filing first and second appeal under the RTI Act.
6. The respondents submitted that copy of the first and second appeal had not been provided by the appellant despite several reminders sent. Further, the CPIO submitted that the information sought regarding the “Assignment Deed” executed by the public authority in favour of M/s. V. R. Packers would consist of the “amount” which was confidential information of third party which would affect the commercial confidence of the third party. Hence, 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; , 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act is attracted. The CPIO also submitted that Commission in its previous decision dated 25 August 2011 had debarred the public authority to disclose the information 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; of the RTI Act.
Decision Notice
7. The CPIO in its reply dated 3 November 2012 has failed to provide any justification for applying 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; , 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act for non disclosure of information. Hence, the Commission remands the matter back to the CPIO with the directions to provide speaking order w.r.t the RTI application to the appellant within 21 days of the receipt of the copy of first and second appeal from the appellant. A copy of the speaking order is to be sent to the Commission also.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri P. Balachandar v. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000999/MP