889ChainSinghCharanDFPDGOI 27 02 8 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00889
Appellant: Shri Chain Singh Charan
Public Authority: Department of Food & Public Distribution,
Government of India
(through Shri N.K. Sharma,
Director (Impex &Vig.); &
Shri N.P.S. Negi, Under Secretary)
Date of Hearing: 27/02/2009
Date of Decision: 27/02/2009
FACTS
:-
By his letter of 21/01/2008, the Appellant had requested for the following
information:-
“a) The documentation on Government decision arrived and concluded on
18/04/2007, for importing one million ton of wheat.
b) Letter, Order/directives through communiqué dated 225/04/2007 of the
Government issued to State Trading Corporation requesting for import of
One Million ton of wheat.
c) The Notice Inviting Tender, advertisement published in Print
Media/disseminated on Website on 30th April, 2007, 26th June, 2007 and
23rd August, 2007.
d) The tender documents; those which were enclosed along with the bid in
response to advertisement published in Print media on 30/04/2007.
e) The Minutes of Meeting convened by the Tender Opening Committee on
21st May, 2007, 4th July, 2007 and 29th August, 2007.
f) The State Trading Corporation’s recommendation made to Government
relating to Import of Wheat.
g) The Order issued by the Government on 10th July 2007 authorising State
Trading Corporation to Import Wheat “ON GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNT” at wheighted average price of US $ 325.59 per M.T. C&F
(F.O.B.)
h) The International Grain Council report dated 24th May 2007
i) The Reuters’ Report, dated 22nd May, 2007.
j) The documents containing the advice from the Government – i.e. from the
Finance Division and Expenditure Division, time to time, over the issue
relating to import of Wheat from International Market.
k) The Cabinet approval bearing date March 29, 2007 accorded to action plan
for importing five million tons of Wheat.”
889ChainSinghCharanDFPDGOI 27 02 8 2
2. The CPIO, by his letter dated 13/03/2008, had refused to disclose the information
on the ground that the matter was sub judice in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition Nos. 89 of 2007 and 333 of 2006.
3. Aggrieved with the decision of CPIO, the Appellant has filed first Appeal. The
decision of the Appellate Authority upholding the decision of the CPIO was conveyed to
the Appellant by Shri R.B.S. Negi, Under Secretary, vide letter dated 23/04/2008.
4. The present Appeal is directed against the order of the CPIO and the AA.
5. The matter was initially heard on 11/02/2009 when Shri N.K. Sharma and Shri
R.B.S. Negi appeared before the Commission. On their request, the matter was
adjourned to 27/02/2009.
6. As scheduled, the hearing was resumed on 27/02/2009. Shri N.K. Sharma and
Shri R.B.S. Negi are present before the Commission as also Shri Chain Singh Charan, the
Appellant. It is the submission of Shri N.K. Sharma that the information sought by the
Appellant cannot be disclosed as the matter is sub judice. In support thereof, he has
relied on this Commission’s decision dated 17/09/2007, in Appeal No.908/ICPB/2007
(F.No.PBA07/211). The operative part of the order is reproduced herebelow:-
“This Commission has consistently taken a view that if the
information sought relates to a pending proceeding before a competent
Court/Tribunal, then, the said information should be obtained only through
Court/Tribunal and not under the provisions of the RTI Act.” (P.
Balasubramaniam, IC).
7. Shri Sharma would also submit that Cabinet Decisions are exempted from
disclosure in terms of clause (i) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It is also his submission
that the documents relating to Cabinet decisions do contain materials relating to matters
other than the import of wheat and they are not disclosable to the Appellant.
8. On the other hand, it is the forceful plea of the Appellant that the information has
been unlawfully denied to him as pendency of a matter in a court of law is no bar for
disclosure of information. Referring to clause (b) of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, the
Appellant would submit that information can be denied only when it is expressly
forbidden to be published by any court of law or Tribunal, which is not the case in the
matter in hand. The Appellant has relied on certain decisions of this Commission in
support of his plea. The first decision he has relied upon is in Appeal
No.288/ICPB/2006(File No.PBA/06/332) dated January 18, 2007, wherein in a sub judice
matter, this Commission had ordered disclosure of information. Further, in File
No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00193 dated 18/09/2006, a similar view was taken by this
Commission.
889ChainSinghCharanDFPDGOI 27 02 8 3
9. Responding to the submission of Shri Sharma regarding non-disclosure of Cabinet
Decisions, the Appellant has drawn my attention to the proviso appended to clause (i) of
Section 8(1) of the Act which provides that after the decision has been taken and matter is
complete or over, the decisions of the Council of Ministers can be disclosed.
10. I have considered the rival contentions as mentioned herein above. It may be apt
to advert to the preamble to the RTI Act, 2005, which speaks of promotion of
transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The preamble
also stresses that information is vital for the efficient functioning of a democratic polity
and for holding the Governments and their instrumentalilties accountable to the governed.
Needless to say, the decision for import of over one million tonnes of wheat was taken by
the competent authority and the people of the country are entitled to know the decision-
making processes involved herein. In this view of the matter, and in conformity with the
earlier decisions of this Commission adverted to herein above, it would be lawful if the
information sought by the Appellant is disclosed to him.
DECISION
11. In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by CPIO and the Appellate
Authority are set aside. Shri N.K. Sharma, Director, is hereby directed to provide the
information requested for by the Appellant in six weeks time. However, if the notings in
the file containing decision of the Council of Ministers contain materials relating to other
matters, Shri Sharma would be at liberty to obliterate the same and supply only that
portion of the material which is relevant to the matter in hand.
12. The matter is disposed of subject to the above directions.
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
Tele: 011 2671 73 53