CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00394 dated 16.4.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri P. Thavasiraj. Tamilnadu
Respondent - Dep't of Atomic Energy, Mumbai
Facts
:
By an application of 8.12.06 Shri Thavasiraj of Sattankulam Talluk,
Tuticorin District, Tamilnadu applied to the CPIO / Director (I&M), Dep’t. of
Atomic Energy seeking the following information:
“1. Kindly furnish copy of the complaints related to allegations of
irregularities in purchase of machines for the OSCOM Unit of
IREL.
2. Kindly furnish copy of the enquiry report made by DAE on
the above complaints.
3. Kindly furnish copy of the complaints alleged that Mr. K.P.
Sreenivasan Plant In charge of Indian Rare Earths Limited,
Manavalakurichi indulged in favoritism and caused loss to
the Manavalakurichi Plant.
4. Kindly furnish the detailed report furnished by IREL in this
connection in respect of this allegation.
5. Kindly furnish the copy of the relevant documents which
were called for from IREL in respect of CBI request.”
To this he received a response from Ms. Latika Goel, Dy. Secretary
(I&M)/PIO DAE dated 17.1.07, who had received the application on 19.12.06,
answering all questions except question No. 5, to which the reply was as follows:
“With regard to point (5) of your letter, the documents called for
from IREL in connection with the CBI request contains commercial
details of purchases made by the Company and disclosure of the
same is likely to harm the business interests of the company.
Therefore, by virtue of exemption granted under sec. 8(1) (d) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 the copies of the documents sought
cannot be provided.”
1
Appellant then moved his first appeal before Addl. Secretary, DAE on
27.1.07 asking specifically for the following:
“I request copy of relevant documents which were called for from
IREL in respect of CBI request. This is not come under the purview
of Sec. 8(1) (d) as this is not a commercial confidence or trade
secret. Hence the PIO findings are not correct.”
Shri V. P. Raja, Addl. Secy. (I&M) in his decision of 1.3.07 decided as follows:
“After carefully studying through the appeal petition, the provisions
of the Right to Information Act and the documents in question, I
have come to the conclusion that the PIO had rightly denied the
“documents” to the Appellant as no larger public interest would be
served by providing the same.
The PIO had rightly denied copies of the documents sought by the
appellant as the provisions contained in sec., 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act
gets attracted in this particular case. The revelation of the
information sought is likely to have an adverse effect on the
efficient operation and management of Indian Rare Earths Limited
which has to function as a commercial organization in a competitive
environment and where decisions have to be taken in the best
business interests of the company.
Hence the appeal is rejected and the decision of the PIO given in
her letter No. 7/3(21)/2005-PSU/439 dated 17.1.07 is confirmed.”
In his prayer before us in second appeal Shri P. Thavasiraj has specifically
cited the information sought at Para 5 of his application from the CPIO. His
prayer before us is as follows:
“The appeal may be allowed and the PIO may kindly be directed to
furnish the information to the appeal petitioner.”
The appeal was heard on 1.9.08 by video conferencing. Although
informed of the date of hearing and arrangements having been made at NIC
Studio, Tuticorin, Appellant Shri Thavasiraj has opted not to be present.
The following are present at NIC Studio Mumbai:
Respondents
Ms. Revati, Joint Secy. (I&M) DAE2
Ms. Latika Goel, PIO.
Ms. Revati, Jt. Secretary (I&M) DAE submitted that the Decision in this
case was taken because the information obtained from IREL was with regard to
purchase orders, cost estimates, quotations and Board’s deliberations, all of
which were considered information exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (d) since
all of these pertain to the competitive position of third party in question i.e. IREL,
as also commercial confidence and trade secrets. This was the reason why this
information was denied also in another application of 22.9.06, received from
appellant Shri Thavasiraj regarding which an appeal has already been heard
before this Commission in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00467 on 6.8.08 through
videoconference, a decision on which has been reserved. In that case one Shri
Anand Padhmanabhan has appeared on behalf of appellant Shri P. Thivasiraj
who has submitted written arguments of appellant in this matter dated 13.8.08.
The decision in both these cases will, therefore, be identical.
DECISION NOTICE
The written statement on behalf of the appellant has been received through
the letter of Shri P. Thavasiraj of 13.8.08. In this he has submitted as follows:
“The PIO by its letter dated 16.1.2007 declined to give information
by invoking section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 stated that the
documents called for from IREL by CBI contains commercial details
of purchased made by the company and disclosure of the same is
likely to harm business interest of the company.
First appellate authority confirmed the above order and rejected the
appeal filed by the appellant herein.
The issue, therefore, before this Hon’ble Commission is whether
the first appellate authority and the PIO were justified in invoking
section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act to refuse information.
Admittedly in the present case there was an investigation by the
CBI. Again admittedly CBI found irregularities in purchase of
Machineries of OSCOM Project; however, the permission sought by3
CBI for registering a regular case against the officers involved was
declined by the Govt.”
He has gone on to quote Sec. 8(1) sub-sections (d) and (j) and Sec 11 of
the R.T.I. Act and has concluded that it is clear that the exemption clause cannot
override the larger public interest. Besides, he states that the order does not
disclose in what way the commercial interest of IREL would be compromised by
the information sought. In this case he has cited the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in P.U.C.L. Vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399. He
has gone on to quote extensively from the decision of the Supreme Court of India
in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India vs.
Cricket Association & ors. (1995) 2 SCC 161. However, the quotation that he
has given is actually the quotation from the decision of Ravinder Bhat J. in
Bhagat Singh vs. Central Information Commission in W.P. 3114/2007 He has
quoted as follows, which is Para 14 of this Decision:
“A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the
Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual
background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions,
outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to
provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the
rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption has to be
construed in their terms; (See Nathi Devi v Radha Devi Gupta 2005
(2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC
231 v. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a
different approach would result in narrowing the rights and
approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights
under the Act, which his unwarranted.”
In the above case submitted by appellant, although we have treated as
the definitive the judgment cited for application of sec. 8(1) (h) for exemption in
particular and exemption u/s 8(1) in general, it would not apply in the present
case, since this is to be examined in the light of the issue of compromise of
commercial interest and invasion of privacy. Hence, as discussed in our decision
in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00467, we find that commercial confidence
notwithstanding, the information sought in this case falls within the definition of
private information and is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act.
4
Reserved in the hearing, the decision is announced in open chambers on
this 2nd day of September 2008.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
2.9.2008
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
2.9.2008
5