Copy of inspection report of transaction audit of NIT denied u/s 8(1)(e) - CIC: the records forming part of the preaudit exercise are retained by the AG and constitute information within the meaning of section 2(f) - disclosure ordered
3 Sep, 2013Order
1. In respect of some audit of the National Institute of Technology, Surathkal, the Appellant had sought a copy of the original inspection report of transaction audit for the year 20.11.12 along with the reply furnished by the Deputy Registrar (Accounts). The CPIO had refused to disclose the information on the ground that the desired information was held in fiduciary capacity and could not be disclosed as exempt under the provisions of section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant had preferred an appeal. However, the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal after upholding the decision of the CPIO.
2. The Appellant strongly argued that this information should be disclosed because it was not right to claim that it was held in a fiduciary capacity. He cited an order passed by the CIC earlier in this regard in which it had been held that audit reports including the draft audit reports should be disclosed because, in the opinion of the CIC, it was not held in any fiduciary capacity. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the desired information was in the nature of an audit report in the making and consisted of the queries raised by the audit team and the reply given by the audited entity and that such report assumed finality only after the competent authority accepted the contents after vetting it. Therefore, according to him, this information should not be disclosed. In case of the desired report, however, he admitted that the final audit report had already been placed before the Legislature.
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. A similar matter had been considered by the CIC in the past as pointed out by the Appellant. In that, the CIC had gone into the question of the information being held in fiduciary capacity and held that this class of information could not be said to fall in that category. We are in agreement with that finding. We do not see any reason why such information should be considered to be held in trust or in a fiduciary capacity. It is admitted that during the process of audit, a lot of exchange takes place between the audit party and the audited entity and many issues are raised and clarified and, then, a final report is prepared. It may be true that the final audit report may not reflect this entire interim transaction that takes place between both the sides. Even then, if the records and documents forming part of the preaudit exercise are still retained by the AG, they constitute part of information within the meaning of section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act and the CPIO is obliged to disclose such information unless it is otherwise exempt under any of the provisions of that Act. To claim exemption for this kind of information under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; does not seem to be very valid. Interoffice exchange of communications constitute the staple of information in any public authority and cannot be classified as records held in a fiduciary capacity by every recipient of such records.
4. Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that the desired information should be disclosed. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and direct the CPIO to disclose the information to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order, free of charge.
5. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. R J D Souza v. Principal Accountant General (G&SSA) in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/900442