Does disclosure of the inventory of a closed company involves any public interest?
5 Mar, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Gold Mines Limited (BGML) seeking information regarding the details of the inventory check made on the BGML properties with effect from the date on which the Estate Officer/ Chief Security Officer took charge. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under sections 8(1)(a), 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 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 RTI Act. He stated that the company had been closed and the matter regarding its revival was pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India and that its properties were seized by the Company Court and the disclosure of information might affect the revival process.
Proceedings
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that BGML is a Government of India undertaking having huge resources both in terms of land and equipment much of which is being illegally siphoned off by the authorities in charge. He stated that this is the reason why he wanted the details of the inventory held by the company to be made public. The respondent argued that the company had gone before the Company Court and therefore, any information about the company should be obtained from the Court and not under RTI. Referring to some provision in the Companies Act, he claimed that once any such matter was referred to the Company Court, it would be for the Court to decide on all matters concerning the company under those provisions.
View of CIC
The Commission held that sections 8(1)(a), 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 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 RTI Act are not applicable in this case and that the PIO has not given any grounds to justify his claim. The Commission also observed that it is a public sector company owned by the Government of India and its inventories should be scrupulously preserved and publicly known so that any tampering with these properties is made difficult. The Commission also noted it is difficult to understand how the disclosure of the details of the inventory can have any adverse effect on any proposal to revive the company or to liquidate it or even to go for a global tender for any of these purposes. If the details of the inventory are published the authorities in charge would be duty bound to protect these properties therefore, there is a lot of merit in the disclosure of this information as it would be in public interest.
The CIC held that unless there is a clear injunction from the Court against disclosure of any such information to the public, there is no reason why the information should not be disclosed if it is held in material records with the company. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the attested photocopy of the statement showing the inventory of the company at the time or after the joining of the Estate Officer/Chief Security Officer.
Citation: Mr. G Jayakumar v Bharat Gold Mines Limited in File No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000608SM
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1094
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission