Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 4656/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2008/000515
Dated, the 29th October, 2009
Name of the Appellant: : Shri Ajit Pathak
Name of the Public Authority: : Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on July 29 and September 2, 2009.
2. The details of information asked for and the replies given by the CPIO and
Appellate Authority were discussed. The parties were also asked to submit
comments and rejoinders, which we have examined.
3. The appellant, an advocate, has asked for certain information relating
to an on-going dispute between M/S Maharashtra Seamless Limited and the
respondent, IOCL, which is pending before an Arbitration for adjudication. In
response to the RTI application, the CPIO and Appellate Authority of the
respondent have furnished a large part of the requested information. A part of
information has however been refused u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the Act on the
ground that (i) the appellant, an advocate, has asked for information for
promotion of his personal interest since he is pursuing the matter before the
Arbitration on behalf of the party in dispute, namely M/s Maharashtra
Seamless Ltd; (ii) the disclosure of remaining information would unduly
compromise the respondent’s position before the Arbitration.
Decision:
4. The respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has furnished partial
information while the remaining information has been refused on the ground that
the disclosure of information, which is claimed as commercial details, would
compromise its position before the Court, which is examining the dispute
between the parties. Since the Court / Arbitration is duly seized of the issues
raised by the appellant, who is pleading the case on behalf of a party in dispute,
he is free to access the information through the Arbitration, which has full control
over the information relating to the ongoing dispute. At the time when the matter
is already before a Court, there is no justification either for forum hunting by the
appellant or for this Commission to interfere in the matter at this stage. The
appellant would however be free to access the entire records after the Arbitration
has passed its decision in the disputed matter.
5. With these observations, the appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Mr. Ajit Pathak, S/o – L.B. Pathak, 2nd Floor, House of Dr. Dayanand,
Rangpuri Village, New Delhi – 110 037
2. Shri A.K. Rauniar, Executive Director (HR) & PIO,ICL Pipelines Division, A
– 1, Udyog Marg, Sector – 1, Noida – 201 301
3. Shri P K Chakraborti, Director (Pipelines) & Appellate Authority, IOCL
Corporate Office, Plot No – 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New
Delhi – 110 049