Details of PSU shares purchased by LIC - information regarding corporation’s investment is exempt u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: LIC is the custodian of public funds - total investments in percentage terms made by LIC to be disclosed & not the daily transactions
10 Oct, 2013Details of PSU shares purchased by LIC - information regarding corporation’s investment is exempt 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; – CIC: LIC is the custodian of public funds, information in percentage terms of total investments made by the Corporation in shares of PSUs, private banks, public sector banks and other companies to be disclosed, if held - day to day transactions made in the portfolio of the Corporation in the share market are not required to be disclosed
ORDER
Facts:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 05 March 2012 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai seeking information related to the shares of the various PSUs purchased by the LIC since 1st April 2007.
2. Vide CPIO Order dated 02 April 2012, CPIO denied the requisite information stating that the desired information does not exist on a “record” as defined under Section 2(i) “record” includes. (a) any document, manuscript and file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device; of the RTI Act,2005.
3. Not satisfied by the PIO’s reply, the Appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated 09 April 2012.
4. Vide FAA Order dated 17 May 2012, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and stated that the information sought by the appellant is not required to be maintained either by way of regulations or as mandated by any external agencies or for any of the their internal purposes.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Respondents as above were heard via videoconferencing from Mumbai. Appellant was not present. CPIO stated that the total amount invested in the shares of the various public sector undertakings along with information regarding total amount of profits made by the Corporation was already in the public domain. In their written submission the CPIO has furnished before the Commission the downloaded documents from their official website which are already in the public domain and which include the long term investments in shares, mutual funds, derivative instruments, debentures/bonds, other securities, subsidiaries and investment properties – real estate. Further total investments in infrastructure and social sector are also declared. Information in short term investments including government securities and government guaranteed bonds including Treasury bills etc. Are also disclosed. The CPIO has furnished an exhaustive list of investments also under various classifications such as security wise, borrower wise, performance wise and security wise. A breakup of investments made in Non-Linked Business such as Life Fund, pension, and general annuity fund, group, excluding group pension/annuity and Linked Business etc. is also provided. Additional information is also disclosed on a quarterly basis. It was held by the public authority that disclosure of any additional information regarding their investments was not warranted and would fall under the exemption provision 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; of the Act which protects the disclosure of information which if disclosed would harm their competitive position.
Decision notice
7. Commission has heard the averments of the respondents and have also perused the facts on record and after doing so hold that there is merit the averments of the respondent CPIO. The appellant has not established any larger public interest in disclosure of this information which is of commercial importance to the Corporation and which if disclosed would adversely impact their own as well as the interests of third parties. However, on the other had we cannot take lightly the fact that the Corporation is the custodian of public funds and must exercise maximum transparency in its actions. Therefore Commission directs the CPIO to ascertain whether information in percentage terms of total investments made by the Corporation in shares of PSUs, private banks, public sector banks and other companies is held by them and if so then the same will be disclosed for a period of five years from 2007 – 2011 to the appellant. It is clarified that day to day transactions made in the portfolio of the Corporation in the share market are not required to be disclosed.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Citation: Shri Shyam Lal Yadav v. LIC of India in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002276