Shri R. Mohan vs Pipdic Ltd on 6 January, 2010

     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
  Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                    File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/000774
                (Hearing through Video Conferencing)

Appellant             :       Shri R. Mohan

Public Authority      :       PIPDIC Ltd.
                              (through Shri B. Sainthakrishnan, Chief
                              General Manager)

Date of Hearing       :       6.1.2010

Date of Decision :            6.1.2010

FACTS

:

The matter, in short, is that PIPDIC had allotted 875 Sq Mts of
land to the appellant in 1993. However, no lease agreement was
executed between the parties. PIPDIC had cancelled the allotment in
1996. In his RTI application dated 28.1.2009, the appellant had
requested for a copy of the legal opinion sought by PIPDIC in this
matter. As the PIPDIC did not provide legal opinion to the appellant,
he has filed the present appeal

2. Heard on 6.1.2010 through video conferencing. Appellant
present. PIPDIC is represented by officer named above. It is the
forceful submission of the appellant that the allotment of land has
been cancelled by PIPDIC due to extraneous considerations. He has
attributed malafides to the former and present senior officers of
PIPDIC. He has also drawn the Commission’s attention to the fact
that he had filed a civil suit in this regard before the 3rd Addl. District
Munsif, Puducherry, and a compromise memo was filed before the
said court on 23.3.2000 and the court had passed the following decree
on 30.6.2000 :-

“The defendants have agreed to execute lease deed in favour of
the Plaintiff with reference to the vacant site of an extent of 875
Sq.M. at the backside shed D-1, Industrial Estate,
Mettupalayam, Puducherry. New the Shed D-1 and the vacant
site are in possession of Plaintiff.”

3. According to him, this decree is final and the executive
authority can not supersede the same. He further submits that
PIPDIC had taken legal opinion from panel Advocate Shri Karriappan
in January, 2008, which is in his favour but due to extraneous
considerations, PIPDIC obtained second opinion from the Law
Department. He forcefully pleads for a copy of the opinion rendered
by Shri Karriappan.

4. On the other hand, Shri Sainthakrishnan would submit that Shri
Karriappan has rendered the legal opinion in a fiduciary capacity and
the same can not be disclosed. He would also submit that if PIPDIC
has violated any court order, it is open to the appellant to seek
alternative remedy in the appropriate legal forum. He strongly pleads
for non-disclosure of the opinion of Shri Karriappan.

5. The question for consideration before this Commission is
whether non-disclosure of Shri Karriappan’s opinion by the PIO as
per his order dated 23.2.2009 is sustainable in law.

6. The issue of exemption from disclosure under clause (e) of
section 8 (1) has been dealt with at length in a recent judgment dated
30.11.2009 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil
No. 8396/2009 & Ors (Union of India Vs CIC). After extensively
surveying the law on the subject, the Hon’ble Court has opined as
follows :-

“16. Thus, where information can be furnished without
compromising or affecting the confidentiality and identity of
the fiduciary, information should be supplied and the bar under
Section 8(1)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked. In some cases
principle of severability can be applied and thereafter
information can be furnished. A purposive interpretation to
effectuate the intention of the legislation has to be applied
while applying Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act and the
prohibition should not be extended beyond what is required to
be protected. In cases where it is not possible to protect the
identity and confidentiality of the fiduciary, the privileged
information is protected under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.
In other cases, there is no jeopardy and the fiduciary
relationship is not affected or can be protected by applying
doctrine of severability.”

7. A bare perusal of the passage extracted above would indicate
that information may be furnished without compromising or affecting
the confidentiality and identity of the fiduciary and the bar of section
8 (1) (e) would not come into play. It is to be emphasized that the
appellant knows the identity of the panel lawyer, that is, Shri
Karriappan who, rendered the opinion in question. Hence, the
question of keeping his identity confidential does not arise. It is
further to be noted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the
purposive interpretation of the law is required to be made to eventuate
the intention of the Act and the bar of section 8 (1) (e) should not be
extended beyond reasonable limits. Viewed, thus, in my opinion non-
disclosure of the opinion, of Shri Karriappan by the CPIO is not
sustainable in law. RTI Act provides for transparency in public life.
If, Shri Karriappan has rendered the opinion in favour of the
appellant, as claimed by the appellant and not denied by the public
authority, the bar of section 8 (1) (e) would not come into play.

DECISION

8. In view of the above discussion, the order of the CPIO is set
aside and he is hereby directed to give certified copy of the opinion of
Shri Karriappan, Panel Advocate, to the appellant in 04 weeks time.

9. The matter is decided accordingly.

Sd/-

(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be
supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed
under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.

(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar

Address of parties :-

1. Shri B. Sainthakrishnan
Chief General Manager,
PIPDIC Ltd.,
Romain Rolland Street,
Puducherry-605001

2. Shri R. Mohan
D-1, MIE Estate,
Mettupalayam, Puducherry.