Copy of the lease agreement between the postal authorities and landlord for the Dhanwatey House, Worli denied u/s 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) - disclosure would put the post office at a disadvantage in protecting its commercial interest - CIC: denial upheld
15 Nov, 2013Information sought:
I would like to have inspection and have copy of the tenancy agreement / other documents available with you with respect to tenancy / possession of premises situated at mezzanine Floor, Dhanwatey House, Plot Mr. Vijay Jaiswal No. 80, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400018.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has denied the information 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; and 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.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 21/08/2013: The following were present Appellant: Mr. R. A. Singh through VC
Respondent: Mr. P K Waghmare CPIO through VC
The appellant stated that he had sought a copy of the lease agreement entered into by the postal authorities for the premises located at Dhanwatey House, Worli, Mumbai but the information has not been provided. The CPIO stated that the information is 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; 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; & 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. The appellant argued that the information cannot be denied merely by quoting exemptions without giving reasoned justification for claiming the aforesaid exemptions. The CPIO requested that an opportunity should be given to him to make detailed submissions outlining the reasons as to why the information cannot be disclosed. He further stated that they will also have to follow the process as outlined in Section 11 of the RTI Act as the information relates to a third party.
Interim Decision notice dated 21/08/2013: As requested by the CPIO it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from him demonstrating in detail his stand on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on record. Accordingly, the CPIO should furnish his submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to appellant) by 23/09/2013. The hearing is adjourned for 09/10/2013 at 04:00 pm.
Relevant Facts emerging during the Hearing on 09/10/2013: The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. P K Waghmare CPIO through VC
The CPIO stated that the information (viz. copy of the lease agreement entered into with the land lord) is a confidential document relating to a third party and if disclosed would put the post office at a disadvantage in protecting its commercial and competitive interest and should, therefore, not be disclosed. He pointed out that the rentals are high and there is keen competition for space particularly for strategically located premises and any disclosure of such information would be detrimental to their commercial interest. He further stated that the information relates to a third party and no bonafide public interest has been shown by the appellant to justify its disclosure and contended the information is 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; 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; & 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. The appellant is present for making his submissions/contesting the facts.
Decision Notice
The submissions of the CPIO are logical and cannot be faulted. Post offices are operating as commercial entities and there is keen competition for space and the disclosure of such contracts viz. lease agreements which have commercial bearing must be treated with utmost caution. Besides, the information relates to a third party and no bonafide public interest has been cited by the appellant to justify its disclosure. The appellant has also not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and canvass his case/contest the CPIO’s submissions. In the above circumstances we are unable to provide any relief. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. R. A. Singh v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000911/3666