The appellant did not exhaust the first appellate channel u/s 19(1) instead filed the complaint before the Commission - CIC: information cannot be accessed u/s 18; no penal proceedings warranted as reply has been provided within stipulated period
10 Feb, 2014Information in respect of CAG’s Audit Report was denied 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; - the appellant did not exhaust the first appellate channel u/s 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. instead filed the complaint before the Commission - CIC: the nature of power u/s 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure u/s 19 is an appellate procedure; information cannot be accessed through section 18; the respondent have replied to the complainant within stipulated period, no action for penalty proceedings is warranted; complaint dismissed
ORDER
1. The complainant through his RTI application dated 9.12.2012 sought information on the following seven queries in respect of CAG’s Audit Report:
(1) CAG report pertaining to sale and distribution of imported pulses scrutinized by the Vigilance Division;
(2) The names, designations and the tenure of officers who were Incharge of Agro Division along with the dealing Managers at Corporate Office during the period when the above imports were made and the losses incurred;
(3) Copy of the report submitted by the Vigilance Division on the said CAG Report/Loss of Rs. 243.55 crores suffered by MMTC on sale and distribution of imported pulses along with disciplinary action suggested against the concerned officials responsible for this loss;
(4) Copy of letter(s) issued by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution since the year k2006, authorizing MMTC to import pulses till 2011 showing quantity and attached conditions mentioned therein for import;
(5) The Region-wise losses suffered in import and sale of pulses year-wise commencing 2006;
(6) Names of foreign suppliers along with the quantity of pulses of each kind imported from them year-wise with breakup of type of pulses/ supplier-wise/ year-wise/ Govt. acct/MMTC account;
(7) In case MTPL was the foreign supplier, then a confirmation to the effect that the foreign supplier to MTPL had submitted a bid bond to MTPLL for an amount equal to or higher than that mentioned in MMTC’s Tender for import of pulses;” The CPIO/Vigilance vide letter No. I/480-Vig/1550 dated 3.1.2013 replied to the complainant as follows:
(1) Vigilance Division has not scrutinized CAG reports pertaining to sale and distribution of imported pulses.
(3) Vigilance Division ahs not submitted any report on the CAG report for the loss of Rs. 243.55 crores suffered by MMTC on sale and distribution of imported pulses. The CPIO (Agro) vide letter No,. MMTC/Agro/Pulses/RTI/2012-13 dated 1.1.2013 replied to the complainant as follows:
(4) The communications of Ministry were of confidential in nature hence could not be provided as per section 8(1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; of the RTI Act;
(5) Agro Division does not maintain any break-up of region-wise losses. The Corporation’s account from the year 2006 onwards were available on the website, which may be referred. There is no public interest mentioned by the applicant, which warrants disclosure of such information;
(6) The information sought is of confidential in nature, disclosing associates of MMTC and the same cannot be provided 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; and
(7) MTPL is a subsidiary of MMTC and doing its business as a separate entity in Singapore and operating under the laws of Singapore. MMTC does not maintain information on the internal procedure regarding bid bond adopted by MTPL vis-à-vis their clients. No public interest has been mentioned by the applicant warranting disclosure of such information and information is exempted for disclosure u/s 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act”.
2. The complainant has not exhausted first appellate channel under section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act. Instead he has filed the present complaint before the Commission in which he states that the response of the CPIO/Vigilance in response to Point No. 1 and 3 is evasive. The internal, statutory and CAG Audit Reports are source of information which the Vigilance Division need to suo motu scrutinize for any irregularities or frauds as mentioned in CVC’s Vigilance Manual and if not scrutinized then it is a serious lapse on the part of the Vigilance Division. As regards the information provided by the CPIO/Agro on Points 4, 5 and 6 thus is also evasive. The transactions pertaining to this loss are already over and therefore the details need to be provided in public interest. The CPIO has not even transferred that part of the RTI application to the concerned public authority who is holding the relevant information. As regards query No. 7 pertaining to MMTC’s 100% subsidiary i.e. MTPL, Singapore, it is clarified that Section 2(h)(d) (i) should cover same for purposes of RTI Act i.e. Public Authority means any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted by notification issued or order made by appropriate Government, and includes any body owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The complainant requests suitable action against both the CPIOs Vigilance and Agro.
3. In the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another (Civil appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 arising out of S.L.P(C) No. 32768-32769/2010) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under vide Judgment dated 12.12.2011:
“Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act.”
4. The present complaint has been filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 and is being dealt with accordingly. In view of the fact that the respondent CPIO/Vigilance and CPIO/Agro have replied to the complainant vide their letters dated 3.1.2013 and 1.1.2013 respectively, within stipulated period, no action for penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act against the CPIOs is warranted. The instant complaint is accordingly disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri R.K. Tanwar v. M.M.T.C Ltd. in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000271