Copy of agreement executed between the Indian National Press and the Central Bank of India - Appellant: a lease agreement of a company cannot be termed personal information or of commercial confidence - CIC: denial upheld
29 Nov, 2013O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 22-5-2012 seeking information regarding a landlord tenant agreement as referred to in the application.
2. The CPIO responded on 21-6-2012, denying information to the appellant 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; and (j) of the RTI Act on grounds of commercial confidence and personal information. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 6122012. The FAA responded on 2872012 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 21-1-2012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was represented by a legal counsel who stated that he is seeking a copy of the agreement executed between the landlords, i.e., the Indian National Press, and the Central Bank of India.
4. The appellant’s counsel referred to the RTI application and stated that he is seeking the following information:
(a) the lease deed between the Indian National Press and the Central bank of India;
(b) rent receipt; and in the event of there not being a proper lease deed, any letter fixing the rent and terms and conditions of occupation.
5. The appellant’s counsel stated that he is relying on decision no. CIC/SG/A/2010/002932/11346 dated 7-2-2011 in pursuance of appeal no. CIC/SG/A/2010/002932
6. The appellant’s counsel said that what emerges from the decision of 7-2-2011 is this that details of the lease deed cannot be considered to be of commercial confidence. The counsel said that a lease agreement of a company cannot be termed personal information, taking into account also that the information has been generated in the course of a public activity, and that section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporate bodies.
7. The appellant’s counsel stated that the response of the CPIO of 21-6-2012, which is taking the cover of the RTI Act’s 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; and (j) is not tenable. The appellant stated that such type of agreements on lease terms and conditions are in the nature of public documents. The appellant also said that the communication of the respondent to the appellant is cryptic, and does not provide reasons for the respondent’s decision.
8. In my opinion, there can be the element of personal information and confidentiality in a contract between entities, even if they are public authorities. More specific is the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Jamia Millia Islamia vs. Ikramuddin, in W.P.(C) No. 5677/2011 in which it was held that “the expression personal information used in section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. means information personal to any other person, that the public authority may hold. That other person may or may not be a juristic person, and may or may not be an individual”. In this light, section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, in particular, is attracted to the present case. It is mentionable that the appellant’s representative did not make out any case for public interest. Hence, the decision of the first appellate authority (FAA) to deny the information is upheld.
9. The respondent did not participate in the hearing.
Decision:
10. The decision of the FAA to deny the information is upheld. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Bharat Prabhulal Mehta v. Central Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001804/05309