Copies of show cause notices issued to various Telecom Companies & action thereon was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: Appellant has not appeared before the CIC to demonstrate that the disclosure of the information is in larger public interest; appeal disposed
31 Mar, 2015Information sought:-
The appellant has sought the following information:-
(a) Provide copies of show cause notices issued against various telecom companies for financial penalties and other such actions.
(b) Provide copies of response of the telecom companies to the said show cause notices.
(c) Provide copies with file notings if any of these show cause notices have been dropped or amounts reduced or other regulatory actions not taken.
(d) Provide information if any cases have been filed with police, CBI or any other agencies or any court.
(e) Provide information on the cases where such show cause notices have been converted to action.
(f) Provide information on the financial penalty received by DOT. Also provide information on the regulatory actions taken, if any.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. Gwal, ((M) 09437463655) CPIO on VC;
The CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant viz. copies of show cause notices issued to various Telecom Companies and action thereon, is confidential information relating to 3rd parties and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but the telecom companies have objected to the disclosure citing reasons such as being subjudice, adverse impact on their competitive position etc and have claimed exemption 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; 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. He contended the information cannot be provided as no overriding public interest has been demonstrated. It is seen from the appellant’s second appeal to the Commission that he has contended that the respondents have not provided any reasons to justify the exemption claimed by them 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; 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 have also not followed third party procedure. He has further stated that the FAA has failed to hear his case which is against principles of natural justice. The CPIO reiterated that they have followed the third party procedure as laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the penal proceedings against telecom companies are confidential and if disclosed would have an adverse impact on their competitive position.
Decision notice:
It is seen that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 24/11/2014 (W. P. (C) 85/2010 and CM Nos. 156/2010 & 5560/2011 – Naresh Trehan V/S Rakesh Kumar Gupta) has observed as under:
“14…………………….It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one’s competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of 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; 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 Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties.”
In the matter at hand the CPIO has confirmed that they have followed third party procedure as laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act. He has further submitted that penal proceedings against telecom companies are confidential and if disclosed would have an adverse impact on their competitive position.
The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and demonstrate that the disclosure of the information asked for by him is in larger public interest. It, being so, there is no need to interfere with the respondent’s decision. As regards the appellant’s plea that the FAA failed to hear his appeal, it is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided. In view of this, we would only like to suggest that the FAA should, as far as possible give the appellant including the third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Kishanlal Mittal v. Department of Telecommunications in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000177/6642