Investment made by LIC in the auction of ONGC shares denied u/s 8(1)(d) - this process is proprietary in nature with commercial overtones and disclosure would harm the commercial interests of LIC – CIC: Portfolio management is a commercial activity
25 Oct, 2013Seeking information related to investment made by LIC in the auction of ONGC shares denied 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; 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; - this process is proprietary in nature with commercial overtones and disclosure would harm the commercial interests of the corporation - CIC: Portfolio management is a commercial activity and disclosure in the matter of investment will amount to encroaching on matters of commercial confidence
Facts:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 25 June 2012 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Division Office I, Jaipur seeking information related to investment made by LIC in the auction of ONGC shares (floor price Rs.290/) in reference with the CPIO’s letter dated 12 June 2012 through multiple points. Matter was transferred to the RTI Department, Central Office, Mumbai.
2. Vide Order dated 24 July 2012, CPIO provided some of the requisite information and denied others on the ground of exemption given 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; 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 ruled that other information sought do not come under the perview of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act,2005.
3. Not satisfied by the PIO’s reply, the Appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated 23 August 2012.
4. Vide FAA Order dated 04 October 2012, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Both parties as above appeared at Mumbai and were heard via videoconferencing. It was stated by the respondents that the organization follows "collective nature of decision making" in respect of all the investment decisions involving the Investment Committee and the Chairman of the Corporation. In respect of the decision of the Corporation to invest in ONGC shares, the decision was based on the Research Report on ONGC put up by the Risk Management and Research Development of LIC of India and that this information has already been provided to the appellant. It was further submitted by the respondents that this process is proprietary in nature with commercial overtones and is unique to the business process adopted by the Corporation the disclosure of which would harm the commercial interests of the Corporation. Appellant alleged that the LIC of India has acted under pressure by the Finance Ministry in the matter of investment in ONGC shares which allegation was stoutly refuted by the respondents.
Decision notice
7. After hearing the averments of both parties, Commission notes that the public authority has been quite transparent regarding the procedure adopted for making investments of public funds held by them. Portfolio management is a commercial activity of the LIC of India which is governed by IRDA rules within which the investment managers of the Corporation are bound to operate while taking investment decisions pertaining to public funds. In our view, any further disclosure in the matter of investment will amount to encroaching on matters of commercial confidence as per the nondisclosure provisions 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; 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 RTI Act, 2005 and will not be in larger public interest.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri N.D. Dujari v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002760