CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000079/SG/8283
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000079/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Asish Kumar Roy Chowdhury
13B, Mahendra Chatterjee Lane,
Kolkata-700046.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner’s (II’s) Office
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation
Ministry of Labour, Government of India
No. 14 & 15, B.T. Road,
P.O. – Titagarh, Kolkata-700019.
RTI application filed on : 28/08/2009 PIO replied : 31/10/2009 First appeal filed on : 05/10/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 16/11/2009 Information Sought
1. Details of enquiry and inspection report dated 16/04/2005 made by public officials in the
establishment of Babubali Traders Pvt. Ltd.
2. Details and copies of Public Notices issued during the period of 18/04/2007 to 11/06/2009 to
the above mentioned establishment.
3. Detailed records including file notings and relevant documents on the basis of which RPFC(II)
issued order dated 13/08/2009 to Babubali Traders Pvt. Ltd, along with permission to inspect
the files.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
“On received of your letter requesting for third party information i.e. information in respect of M/s
Babubali Traders (P) Ltd. at Unit of Nuddea Jute Mills Ltd., Naihati, 24-Pgs(N), this office served a
Notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 to M/s Babubali Traders (P) Ltd. at Unit Nuddea Jute
Mills Ltd. Naihati, 24 Pgs(N) vide this office letter dated 03/09/2009 for disclosure of information
sought by you. Submission from M/s Babubali Traders (P) Ltd, Naihati has not received after expiry of
the stipulated period. It is presumed that M/s Babubali Trades, (P) Ltd is not intended to disclose the
information sought by you.
It is therefore decided that the information sought by you in respect of a third will not be disclosed on
the above mentioned ground.”
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Nor ordered.
Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO and inaction on the part of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared.
The PIO has given no ground for denial. He has stated that he asked third party and since third party
has not replied he has decided not to give the information. Section-11 states, “(1) Where a Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to
disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which. relates to
or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall,
within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request
and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to
make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and
such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of
information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be
allowed if the public interest in disclosure out weighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the
interests of such third party.
(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or
record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be
given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.”
Thus Section-11 is a procedural section and not an exempting section. Besides it clearly envisages that
10 days shall be given to the third party to give any objections to releasing the information. If within 10
days no objections are raised the presumption is that the third party has no objection. Even if the third
party objects in giving the information the PIO is expected to keep these in view while taking a
decision about disclosure of information. Denial of information can only be based on the exemptions of
Section-8(1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case the PIO has assumed that only if the third party sends
an explicit agreement to releasing the information it would be disclosed. This is completely perverse
reading of the Section-11 of the RTI Act. No exemption has been quoted and the fact that a third party
did not give any submissions has been taken as a ground for denial of information. Hence the PIO’s
denial of information is without any basis in law. Disclosure of information is the norm in RTI and
denial of information has to be justified as per the Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the complete information to the appellant before
20 July 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
28 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)
Page 2 of 2