Information was provided from the shadow file by PIO which has later denied by the FAA - CIC: The FAA has been unable to justify denial of information & has shown utter disregard towards the RTI regime - CIC: The CMD (FCI) directed to take a note
28 Apr, 2015Information sought:
The appellant had sought certified copy of tender acceptance letters including corrigendum issued of each of the OMSS dedicated movement tender approved by regional office during 2013-14, details of payment done by buyers for the stock sold rakewise, copy of release order issued, copy of authority submitted by buyer for accepting the stock, copy of release order, delivery completion report of each RO, details of rake loaded by FCI under OMSS dedicated movement, copy of railway receipt of each rake loaded railhead wise, details of indent placed and cancelled with railways in February, March 2014, etc.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and are heard through video conferencing. The appellant had filed an RTI application on 28.04.2014, seeking the above information. Manager (RTI) in his reply provided point wise information along with relevant documents. The FAA/General Manger (R) in his order refers to replies from CPIO/DO, FCI, Gwalior, Bhopal and Sagar vide their letters dated 26.05.2014, 27.05.2014 and 10.06.2014 respectively. The Commission only has CPIO/DO, FCI, Gwalior’s reply dated 10.06.2014 on record. The FAA, after examining the appeal, finds that since the original records for 2012-13 OMSS have been seized by CBI, they are not available in the office; further, them being commercial in nature are exempted under 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. of the RTI Act.
The appellant stated that part information has been received as the CPIO has not provided details of each rake of stock allotted under OMSS tender sale party wise, copy of authority submitted by buyer for accepting the stock is incomplete, copy of delivery completion report, RR has not been given. The respondent stated that information as available on record was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 10.06.2014. The appellant stated that some of the copies provided by the respondent authority are incomplete, the same may be given again. On query by the Commission from the FAA as to whether the information was denied to the appellant because the same were not available as the file has been seized by CBI or they are commercial in nature 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; or personal in nature u/s 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. , the FAA was unable to give a satisfactory answer. CPIO, Sagar stated that information can be provided from the shadow file of the original, seized by CBI.
Interim Decision:
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission is of the view that this case has been dealt with in the most lackadaisical manner. The CPIO has provided information from the shadow file, which has been denied on a later date by the FAA by taking three pleas, namely, the documents being unavailable as the same have been seized by CBI, the information sought being of commercial in nature 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; and personal in nature u/s 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. . The FAA, present before the Commission, has been unable to justify any of these pleas for denial of information and has shown utter disregard towards the RTI regime.
In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO and the FAA to file their written submissions, clearly stating what has been provided to the appellant, any additional information that can be provided to the appellant and what cannot be provided to him after invoking appropriate exemption clauses of the RTI Act. The written submissions should be received in the Commission, latest by 27th February 2015, a copy of which shall also be endorsed to the appellant, after which the Commission shall pass a final order and a fresh hearing will be held as desired.
Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, is directed to take note of the manner in which CPIO/FAA have dealt with this case. A copy of this order may be marked to Chairman & Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, for information and necessary action as deemed fit. The order is reserved.
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Premlal Pathak v. Food Corporation of India in F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/902315