Notings from the file of M/s Vadilal Dairy International Ltd - CIC: Respondent could not point out the portions of the notings which were exempted under Sec. 8 (1) d) of the RTI Act and reasons behind denial of the information; Disclose exercising Sec. 10
20 May, 2024
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) “NOC given to other bank regarding settlement of Vadilal Dairy International Ltd.
(ii) All the office noting from the file of M/s Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. From 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2007.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.04.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“Point (i) & (ii) – The sought information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.05.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.05.2022 directed the CPIO to re-consider point no. (i) of the RTI application and provide revised information after obtaining the Board Resolution, ID card, etc.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.07.2022.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Lalita, Deputy General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was Additional Director in Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. and he had provided the copy of resolution on behalf of the company and his ID card establishing his position in the company. However, the respondent had not furnished complete information despite having sent all the requisite documents including the Board Resolution.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had complied with the FAA’s directions and provided revised reply with respect to point no. (i) of the RTI application that no such NOC was sent by SASF to other bank, as referred to in the RTI application.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete. In being queried, the respondent could not point out the portions of the notings which were exempted under Section 8 (1) d) of the RTI Act and reasons behind denial of the information. However, the respondent re-confirmed that no NOC was issued by SASF.
That being so, the respondent may not be compelled to create information which did not exist. However, with respect to point no. (ii) of the RTI application, the respondent is at liberty to exercise Section 10 of the RTI Act and severe the exempted information from the notings before disclosing the desired information to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ankush Ramchandra Garde v. Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, CIC/SASFD/A/2022/133139; Date of Decision: 14.03.2024