Minutes of deliberation on implementation of second pay revision for non unionized supervisors denied u/s 8(1)(j), 8(1)(e) and claiming that it is of commercial confidence – CIC: reliance on the exemption clause has not been established adequately
11 Oct, 2013ORDER
1. The present appeal is being heard in relation to RTI application dated 20.4.2012 filed before the CPIO, Goa Shipyard Ltd., seeking information on (2) points. The RTI application in the two files are identical and are being dealt with in the same order.
At point no. (1) the appellant sought the certified copies of minutes/records of deliberations on implementation of second pay revision (Justice (Retd.) M.J Rao Commission recommendation) for non-unionized supervisors in Board of Directors meetings of Goa Shipyard Ltd.
At point no. (2) the appellant sought certified copies of methodology adopted in implementation of second pay revision for non-unionized supervisors in Goa Shipyard Ltd.
2. The CPIO vide reply dated 18.5.2012 denied the information sought at point no. (1) stating that meetings of Board of Directors and Committees thereof are not open to the public and that minutes of such meeting are not accessible to public, being commercially confident. With regard to point no. (2) the CPIO replied “DPE recommendations no. (2(70)/08 DPE (WC) Government of India dated 26.11.2008 was following for implementation of second pay revision for non unionized supervisors in Goa Shipyard Ltd”.
3. Not satisfied with the reply the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.5.2012 mainly on the ground that the provision under section 4 (1) (b) (x) of the Act requires the public authority to publish the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees including the system of compensation suo moto. The appellant further submits that the appellant sought certified copy of methodology adopted in implementation of second pay revision and not the DPE recommendations which are broad guidelines applicable to PSUs across the board and furthermore the copy of the said recommendation has also not been provided to him. The first appellate authority vide order dated 28.5.2012 denied the information citing 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. 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. & 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; 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. The order of the first appellate authority states that the authority which refused the request of the applicant is an “officer” and therefore he occupies the position of the trustee on whom confidence is reposed by the Company and therefore he is a person in fiduciary relation with the company and hence 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; 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; applies. Also, the first appellate authority states that the information seeker does not claim that he falls in the category of execution at Board Level, below board level and non-unionized supervisors in Goa Shipyard and that the appellant is seeking information of third party and barred 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. 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. The FAA has relied on the decision of the Commission in file no. CIC/WB/C/2007/0011.
4. As far is the respondent has relied on 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. 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 reliance is misplaced as the reasoning of the respondent that the information seeker should explain to which category he belongs (post held in the respondent public authority) is completely irrelevant in the present case. However, the Commission shall peruse the second contention with respect to 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; 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; . The CPIO in his reply denied the minutes/records of deliberations on implementation of second pay revision for non-unionized supervisors in Board of Directors while stating that meetings of Board of Directors and Committees are not open to the public and that minutes of such meeting are not accessible to public, being commercially confident. The first appellate authority however denied the said information under 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; 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; while stating the authority which refused the request of the applicant is an “officer” and therefore he occupies the position of the trustee on whom confidence is reposed by the Company and therefore he is a person in fiduciary relation with the company and hence 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; 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; applies. The inference drawn by the first appellate authority that since the officer who rejected the information is an “officer” (CPIO) and therefore the “officer” is in fiduciary relationship with the company is again misplaced. If this reasoning/logic is accepted, the implementation of the RTI Act itself would come to a standstill. The CPIO and the first appellate authority are expected to be more cautious in the application of exemption clauses to the facts as they are the officers responsible for furnishing replies/information under the RTI Act, 2005. In the present appeal the appellant has sought copies of minutes/records of deliberation on implementation of second pay revision for non-unionized supervisors which does not seem to be of commercial confidence as claimed by the CPIO in his order. The reliance on the exemption clause has not been established adequately. In view of the above, the respondent is hereby directed to provide complete information as sought by the appellant at point no (1) of his RTI application. A copy of the DPE recommendation shall also be provided to the appellant. Directions of the Commission are to be complied within 10 days from the receipt of this order.
Sushma Singh
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ashok Anant Bhatkal v. Goa Shipyard Limited in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003454 CIC/SS/A/2012/003114