Appellant sought information pertaining to his reemployment in Bharat Immunological & Biological Corp. Ltd - CIC: File Noting are open & not fiduciary or personal in nature; provide the same after redacting names of officers who wrote the notes

Information sought:

The appellant had sought information regarding a departmental enquiry pertaining to his reemployment in Bharat Immunological & Biological Corp. Ltd (BIBCOL).

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both the parties are present. The appellant had filed an RTI application on 20.8.2012 seeking information pertaining to his reemployment in Bharat Immunological & Biological Corp. Ltd. The appellant stated that he has given many applications to the respondent but the complete information has not been provided as yet. The respondent stated that appellant had sought the file noting which are the internal communication and not a public document so these are not accessible under the RTI Act.

Decision:

The respondent’s main contention to denying information is that the file noting are internal communication and not accessible under the RTI Act. In Union of India Vs. R. S. Khan. W.P.(C) 9355/2009 & CM No. 7144/2009, Justice S. Murlidhar of Delhi High Court had observed that: -

10.... This Court concurs with the view expressed by the CIC that in the context of a government servant performing official functions and making notes on a file about the performance or conduct of another officer, such noting cannot be said to be given to the government pursuant to a `fiduciary relationship with the government within the ‟ meaning of 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. 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; is, at best, a ground to deny information to a third party on the ground that the information sought concerns a government servant, which information is available with the government pursuant to a fiduciary relationship, that such person, has with the government, as an employee.................................... ............................................................................................................................. 17. As regards Section 8(1)(j), there is no question that notings made in the files by government servants in discharge of their official functions is definitely a public activity and concerns the larger public interest....

It is clear from the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as stated above, File Noting are open and not fiduciary or personal in nature. The respondent contention is not correct i.e. the file noting are internal communication and not accessible under the RTI Act. In view of above, the Commission does not accept the grounds taken by the respondents for denial of information.

The Commission directs the respondents to provide the information to the appellant, to the extent not already provided in relation to his RTI application within a period of two weeks of receipt of this order, after redacting names of officers who wrote the notes or made entries in the concerned files, under intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Lt. Col. V.K. Sethi v. Bharat Immunologicals & Biologicals Corp. Ltd., in F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000098