Information regarding points regarding bulk sale of diesel under the Dhanbad Div. Office of IOC was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides the Section; denial upheld
30 Sep, 2014Fact
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 19.2.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on three points regarding bulk sale of diesel under the Dhanbad Divisional Office of the Respondents during the period January 2011 to January 2013. The CPIO responded on 8.4.2013 and 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; of the RTI Act. The Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 15.4.2013 and approached the CIC in second appeal on 11.6.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that he has not sought any third party information. He further submitted that since the Respondents sell diesel at a fixed rate, disclosure of the information, sought by him, would not affect their competitive position. The Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that diesel is sold by them at fixed rate only through retail outlets. As far as bulk sale is concerned, it is made to the large industry in the area. In this case, the rate of diesel as well as the terms and conditions of sale are determined on a case to case basis between the Respondents and the concerned industry. They, therefore, justified denial of information in this case 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; . The Appellant has not establish any larger public interest for disclosure of the information, except for mentioning in general that there have been irregularities in bulk sales. In our view, this unsubstantiated and general allegation cannot become the basis of larger public interest, warranting disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant.
3. The Appellant also stated that information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or State Legislature, should not be denied to an RTI applicant. He further submitted that this too justifies disclosure of the information in this case. In the above context, we note that both the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have held that the above proviso is specific to subsection (j) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. Moreover, in its judgment dated 30.11.2009 in Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 and 3607 of 2007, the High Court of Delhi has observed as follows regarding this proviso to Section 8 (1) (j):
“The proviso in the present cases is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides 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. of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite 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. of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e., the question of balance between ‘public interest in form of right to privacy’ and ‘public interest in access to information’ is to be balanced.”
4. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the decision of the CPIO to deny 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; of the RTI Act.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Dayanand Sharma v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., in File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001398/SH