List of companies which were listed/delisted with zero value in the portfolio was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: disclosure may harm the commercial confidence of companies being delisted; appeal rejected as no larger public interest established for disclosure
20 Feb, 2014ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant Shri N. Saini has submitted has RTI application dated 20 November 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai, seeking information relating to the list of companies which were listed/delisted with zero value in the portfolio through total of 04 points.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 06 December 2012, CPIO denied the information sought in point nos.01 to 03, citing the exemption 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; of the RTI Act, 2005 as the desired information is commercially sensitive and furnished the information sought in point no.04. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 19 December 2012. Vide FAA order dated 19 January 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
3. The appellant in his submission said that he sought information regarding the list of companies which were listed/delisted with zero value in the portfolio. The appellant then submitted that the reason for asking for the disclosure of information is to bring forward the functioning of a weak company as a result of which they get delisted and also as the matter relates to corruption.
4. The CPIO in his submission said that firstly, the power to list/delist zero value companies is held with the registering authority. Secondly, as per the prevailing accounting practices, a company may not be of Zero Value in real terms, however, as per the books it can be shown of Zero Value as per the SEBI guidelines. Thirdly, the disclosure of information may affect the commercial confidence of the companies being delisted and hence attracts 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondents suggested the appellant to approach the Registrar of Companies, which may have the list of such companies.
Decision Notice
5. The Commission is satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the disclosure of information sought may harm the Commercial confidence of the companies being delisted and hence attracts 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, no larger public interest has been established by the RTI applicant in the present case and mere oral allegations of corruption would not suffice as evidence to establish larger public interest in the disclosure of information. . Hence the present appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri N. Saini v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000350/MP