Information about provident fund was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: When PIO takes a reasoned position about why he chooses not to disclose an information, it cannot be described as obstruction of information or withholding it with malafide intentions
30 Jun, 2017O R D E R
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bokaro Steel Plant seeking information on four points including, inter-alia,
(i) the amount of provident fund deposited in the accounts of the employees in the Bokaro Steel Plant and
(ii) the details of the Banks wherein the said amount has been deposited.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the FAA did not respond to his appeal within the stipulated period. The complainant requested the Commission to impose a penalty on the FAA.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Gauri Shankar Dubey and the respondent Ms. Madhulika V. Kovale, AGM (Pers) and CPIO, Bokaro Steel Plant attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that initially the information sought was denied to the complainant on the grounds that disclosure of information would adversely affect the commercial confidence of the entity concerned. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted 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; of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that a second appeal in the same matter has already been heard and disposed of by the Commission vide decision no. CIC/CC/A/2014/000178-YA dated 11.12.2015 wherein, the CPIO was directed to provide information on point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application. The respondent also stated that the said decision of the Commission has been complied with by the respondent vide letter dated 06.01.2016. Hence, no further information remains to be provided to the complainant.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the information sought in point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application has been denied on the grounds 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 RTI Act. However, this exemption has been incorrectly invoked as it does not apply to the facts of the present case. The Commission further observes that the exemption was claimed due to an error of judgment on the part of the CPIO concerned. However, it cannot be said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with a malafide intention to provide incorrect or misleading information to the complainant. Further, no penalty can be imposed for wrong judgment. The Commission also in the case Shri Umapathy S. v. State Bank of India, Bangalore, CIC/AT/C/2010/ 001084 to 1129 dated 15.12.2010 has held that:
“9…..when CPIO or an Appellate Authority takes a reasoned position about why he chooses not to disclose an information to an applicant, it cannot be described as obstruction of information or withholding it with malafide intentions. It is possible that the contentions of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority be overruled by the CIC, but that alone cannot be the reason to penalise the CPIO or the deemed CPIOs. The CIC has been constituted to correct the error of judgement of the lower officers. There is no provision to impose penalty for wrong judgement. It needs to be noted that sometimes even the orders of superior appellate courts are overturned by higher judicial bodies. The process of reasoning is integral to any judicial process. No one can be faulted for reasoning in one way and not differently”.
In view of the above ratio, the Commission, observes that due information was provided to the complainant. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for the imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
6. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Gauri Shankar Dubey v. Steel Authority of India in Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2016/000042/SB Dated 17.05.2017