DGM of Indian Sugar Exim Corporation sought copies of complaints made against them regarding export of sugar to European Union / USA & action taken on those complaints - PIO denied information quoting section 11 - CIC: provide the information
DGM of Indian Sugar Exim Corporation sought copies of complaints made against them regarding export of sugar to European Union / USA under preferential quota & action taken on those complaints - PIO denied information quoting section 11 - CIC: neither proper notices have been sent to the complainants relating to the information sought in the RTI, nor status of the complaint has been intimated; provide the information
Vide RTI dt 5.2.13, appellant had sought information on 4 points relating to complaints made against Indian Sugar Exim Corporation regarding export of sugar to European Union or USA under preferential quota during last three years and related issues.
2. CPIO/Deputy Secretary, FT (Europe-I) Division, Under Secretary, FT(NAFTA) and CPIO ECA-II Section vide letters dt 18.2.13, 20.2.13, and 21.3.13 provided a nil response. ACPIO/SO vide letter dt 25.3.13, informed appellant that as the information sought relates to third party, a letter was issued u/s 11 to the complainants who have objected to disclose any information. Information was accordingly denied.
3. An appeal was filed on 2.4.13.
4. ACPIO/SO vide order dt 3.5.13, informed appellant that the AA has decided that since no public interest is involved the decision of the CPIO is upheld.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that he is working as DGM with Indian Sugar Exim Corporation and seeking copies of complaints made against them and other related information. The denial of information u/s 11 is not maintainable as it is not a third party information but rather relates to his company. He has also quoted Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Bhagat Singh as per which denial of information can be done u/s 8 of the RTI Act only. CPIO submitted that they are not aware of the status of the appellant in relation to the company and moreover complainant has objected to disclosure of information, in response to notices sent. He reiterated that denial of information was being done u/s 11 of the RTI Act.
6. The Commission directs CPIO to provide to the Commission a copy of their letter issued to the parties u/s 11 of the RTI Act and their response, as also status of these complaints within ten days. A decision will be taken on receipt of a response from the CPIO.
Central Information Commissioner
The Commission is in receipt of a letter dt 14.2.14 from CPIO/Dy Secretary along with enclosures. On perusal of the same, we find that neither proper notices have been sent to the complainants relating to the information sought in the RTI, nor status of the complaint has been intimated.
8. The Commission finds that the appellant who works for the ISEC as DGM had sought copies of complaints made against them and action taken on those complaints by the department. We are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the same. Hence CPIO is directed to provide the information as sought by the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Rajiv Aggarwal v. Deptt. Of Commerce in File No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002221/RM