Alleging misappropriation of funds, the appellant wanted a copy of the statistical report sent by postal authorities containing number of accounts and amounts relating to the MANREGA payments etc. - PIO denied information u/s 8(1)(d) – CIC: order quashed
7 Nov, 2013Alleging misappropriation of funds, the appellant wanted a copy of the statistical report containing number of accounts and amounts relating to the MANREGA payments etc. - PIO denied information u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; - CIC: provide information as it is not apparent how the disclosure of statistical information relating to MANREGA would harm the competitive position of the Postal Department
Information sought:
1- As per Mandalgarh Sub-Post Office’s Establishment letter EST-2 (i) what is working hour of all employees. (ii) staff hours. 2- Copy of Standard Question Form (SQF) sent to Regional Office, Ajmer with respect to Embezzlement matter letter no. 04/01/10-11 Mandalgarh Sub-Post Office.
3- Copies of rules related to order passed related to recovery of interest with respect to letter no. 4/1/10-11 dated 20/03/2012.
4- Provide details of Rs.47344/- interest calculation
5- Details of work and payment done under NAREGA/MANREGA during the period 2008 and 2009 by Mandalgarh Sub-Post Office. Provide complete month wise details.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has not given satisfactory information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Azad through VC
Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant stated that there was misappropriation of funds aggregating approximately Rupees two lakhs at Mandalgarh SPO and the postal authorities are required to submit a statistical report (SQF) to their higher authorities and he wants a copy of the same. He further stated that post master is required to furnish a monthly statement to the higher authorities giving certain statistical details viz. number of accounts and amounts relating to the MANREGA payments and he wants the information. The CPIO stated that the information is of commercial confidence and exempt under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. To a query from the Commission as to how the disclosure of statistical information relating to MANREGA would harm the competitive position of the Postal Department, the CPIO’s representative was unable to give any satisfactory response.
Decision notice:
Access to information, under Section 3 of the RTI Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner so as to shadow the very right itself. Whenever any information is refused quoting an exemption the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reasons and the reasons should be based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be withheld. The CPIO’s representative has not been able to show satisfactory reasons for withholding the details; hence, the information as above should be disclosed to the appellant with 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Azad S/o Shri Rambaksh Ji Azad v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001551/3618