Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2008/00003 dated 21.06.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 25 September 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Tejendra Garg,
Managing Director,
The Industrial Gases Limited,
1st Floor, 15 Ganesh Chandra Avenue,
Kolkata - 700 013.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, IDBI Bank,
IDBI Tower, WTC Complex,
Cuffe Pande,
Mumbai - 400 005.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri V.P. Singh, Appellate Authority
(ii) Shri K.D. Udyodekar, CPIO
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated June 21,
2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information including copies of a
number of documents concerning the disposal of the assets of M/s Kusum
Ingots and Alloys Ltd. The CPIO replied on 16 July 2008 and, instead of
providing specific information on each of the queries of the Appellant, gave
a generalised reply on the subject. Obviously, not satisfied with this reply,
the Appellant moved the first Appellate Authority on July 31, 2008. In his
first appeal, he narrowed down his request to only five documents copies of
which he wanted. The first Appellate Authority disposed of his appeal in his
order dated September 2, 2008 and held that the information sought was
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and 8(1) (h) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. The Appellant has challenged this order in his second
appeal.
3. We heard this case and through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Kolkata studio of the NIC whereas the Respondent was
CIC/SM/A/2008/00003
present in the Mumbai studio. The Respondent argued that the matter was
sub judice and that the information sought concerned the properties of a
third party and, therefore, could not be disclosed. We carefully considered
these submissions and arguments. Merely because there is some dispute
pending in a court of law for adjudication, the desired information cannot
be denied as there is no provision in the Right to Information (RTI) Act
exempting such information from disclosure. It is an admitted fact that the
Bank, with a view to recovering its dues, had sold the assets of the said
company by way of an open tender. Once the assets of the company had
been placed in the public domain for sale through a public notice, it is
strange to claim that it is a confidential information. Clearly, the exemption
provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act as cited by the first
Appellate Authority are not at all attracted in this case.
4. In view of the above, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant
within 10 working days from the receipt of this order, certified copies of all
the five different records/documents as listed by him in his first appeal.
5. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2008/00003