CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.3090/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/0018
November 24, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing on 07.11.2008 through Video Conferencing between
New Delhi-Puducherry-Yanam]
Appellant: Mr. Veerappan
Public authority: Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development
Mr. Ratan Singh, Managing Director & PIO
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated
4.12.2006 addressed to PIO/Managing Director, Pondicherry Industrial
Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Puducherry (“PIPDIC)
requesting information regarding the list of region-wise
Industries/factories/company/rice-mill etc. those who have received loan from the
corporation with the details of name, address etc. In his complaint dated
2.3.2007 filed before this Commission the appellant alleged that the PIO did not
accept his RTI application dated 4.12.2006 and he has sent the same by post on
13.12.2007 but he did not get any response. But, he finally received a letter from
PIO on 6.3.2007. The appellant by his letter dated 8.3.2007 has asked the
department to give the information free of cost as the PIPDIC did not comply
within the time-limit. Accordingly the PIPDIC supplied the information on
10.3.2007. However, not satisfied with the information the appellant came before
the Commission. Comments were called for from the public authority on
22.2.2008, which has been received from the MD-cum-AA, PIPDIC vide letter
dated 29.2.2008. The appellant has submitted his rejoinder on 8.3.2008. This
case was taken up for hearing on 7.11.2008 through Video Conferencing, which
was attended by the appellant from Yanam and the PIO’s representative from
Puducherry.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in the
matter. The matter was also deliberated in detail during the hearing. The claim
of the applicant fails since he is not eligible for the information at the first instance
itself. Though the PIO has finally given the list of people who have taken loan,
the information is exempt under section 8(1)(e) under commercial confidence
clause. Moreover, the outstanding amount is between the individual and the
institution and the appellant is not expected to know how much amount is
available. It is considered to be commercial as well as personal information,
which cannot be given to the third party. However, the Corporation should have
1
acted more diligently in giving reply in time. They should be very careful in
future. In view of this appeal is dismissed. In these lines the appeal is disposed
of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and PIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. Ratan Singh, Managing Director & PIO, Pondicherry Industrial
Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Ltd, 60, Romain
Rolland Street, Puducherry.
2. Mr. P. Veerappan, No. 6, 132/11, K.V. Sub Station Qrs. Mettacur, Yanam-
533464
2