CIC: PIO failed to provide any justification for denial & providing replies; Omission of FAA in issuing not speaking orders & disposing the first appeals is a matter of grave concern; There is no express bar on number of RTI applications that can be filed
28 Feb, 2023Note: In all the below listed cases, the respondent’s replies were not enclosed by the appellant and it was found that all the information sought were from the same respondent and therefore, the cases were clubbed and heard together.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Col S.G. Mane, CPIO, present over VC
Data in the form of
- S.No. -
- File No. -
- Information sought –
- Reply -
- S.No. - 1
- File No. - 116372
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide complete list of tenders published for ALH production, along with details of tenders awarded, year wise expenditure statements along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2009 to 30/11/2021
- Reply - The said information is confidential, sensitive and cannot be shared as the same is relevant to TDS.
- S.No. - 2
- File No. 118421
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide the copies of TDS statements in respect of Helicopter Division along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - The said information is confidential, sensitive and cannot be shared as the same is relevant to TDS.
- S.No. - 3
- File No. - 18423
- Information sought – The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of Annual Reports under RTI Act 2005, pertaining to the Helicopter Division along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2005 to 17/01/2022
- Reply This office does not submit annual report to any authority
- S.No. - 4
- File No. - 118424
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of Minutes/ proceedings of Tender Purchase Committee with regard to LUH, LCH purchases in Helicopter Division along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2018 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - The list of tenders published for ALH production is available on the website link “eprocure.gov.in/cppp/tenders earch/cpppdata.” Documents requested by you contain information including commercial confidence, trade secrets/intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, no such information can be divulged.
- S.No. - 5
- File No. - 118426
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of ID of all the employees of Helicopter Division along with proof of Indian citizenship and file notings for the period from 01/01/2018 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - Not held by this office
- S.No. - 6
- File No. - 118428
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of ID and proof of Indian citizenship in respect of all out sourced employees of Helicopter Division along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - Copies of Employee Cards are not available
- S.No. - 7
- File No. - 118532
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of purchase orders issued to Indian Vendors for production of LUH, LCH helicopter in Helicopter Division, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - The list of tenders published for ALH production is available on the website link “eprocure.gov.in/cppp/tenders earch/cpppdata.” Documents requested by you contain information including commercial confidence, trade secrets/intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, no such information can be divulged.
- S.No. – 8
- File No. - 118533
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of purchase orders issued to Foreign Vendors for production of LUH, LCH helicopter in Helicopter Division, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - The list of tenders published for ALH production is available on the website link “eprocure.gov.in/cppp/tenders earch/cpppdata.” Documents requested by you contain information including commercial confidence, trade secrets/intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, no such information can be divulged.
- S.No. - 9
- File No. - 118536
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of Government Notification/ Legal Opinions/ Minutes/ Proceedings of meeting conducted by CPIO, to stop/ obstruct the implementation of RTI Act 2005 in Helicopter Division by making unlawful/ illegal demands from RTI applicants, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2005 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - No such documents/Records are available
- S.No. - 10
- File No. 118538
- Information sought The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of the purchase orders received from the Ministry of Defence/ Indian Navy for 12 Chetak/ Cheetah by Helicopter Division, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2010 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - The list of tenders published for ALH production is available on the website link “eprocure.gov.in/cppp/tenders earch/cpppdata.” Documents requested by you contain information including commercial confidence, trade secrets/intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, no such information can be divulged.
- S.No. - 11
- File No. - 118540
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of the Minutes/ proceedings of the meetings held for Indigenization of LRUs/ Components of Helicopter Division, along with list of attendees as also file notings for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - The list of tenders published for ALH production is available on the website link “eprocure.gov.in/cppp/tenders earch/cpppdata.” Documents requested by you contain information including commercial confidence, trade secrets/intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, no such information can be divulged.
- S.No. - 12
- File No. – 118541
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of CAG, PAC reports of Helicopter Division along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - The said information is confidential, sensitive and cannot be shared as the same is relevant to project specific, C & AG Audit etc.
- S.No. - 13
- File No. - 118542
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copy of the RTI register of Helicopter Division for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022
- Reply - Not maintained by this office.
- S.No. -14
- File No. - 118546
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of Form 16 statements issued in Helicopter Division along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2017 to 17/01/2022.
- Reply - The said information is confidential, sensitive and cannot be shared as the same is relevant to employees.
- S.No. - 15
- File No. 122810
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of the First Appeals filed under the RTI Act with FAA, HAL Helicopter Division, along with file notings, for the period from 01/01/2005 to 14/02/2022
- Reply - NIL
- S.No. - 16
- File No. - 122811
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide details of the funds provided by the Govt of India. Also provide details of fund transferred to HAL Helicopter Division for production of ALH, LUH, LCH, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2005 to 14/02/2022.
- Reply - The said information is confidential, sensitive and cannot be shared as the same is relevant to specific projects.
- S.No. - 17
- File No. - 122812
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of the purchase order issued to Safran Aviation by HAL Helicopter Division for production of ALH, LUH, LCH, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2019 to 14/02/2022.
- Reply - a) Purchase orders are confidential agreements between two entities and hence cannot be disclosed. b) The helicopters manufactured by HAL are being largely supplied to lndian defence forces, disclosure of any such information would be a national security breach. c) lt is observed that you as a RTI applicant are asking diverse and lengthy information, presently the number of RTI applications received from you are 44 in number. Your queries do not substantiate public interest.
- S.No. - 18
- File No. - 122813
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of the purchase order issued for import of components/ LRUs by HAL Helicopter Division for production of ALH, LUH, LCH, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2019 to 14/02/2022.
- Reply a. Purchase orders are confidential agreements between two entities and hence cannot be disclosed. b. The helicopters manufactured by HAL are being largely supplied to lndian defence forces, disclosure of any such information would be a national security breach. c. lt is observed that you as a RTI applicant are asking diverse and lengthy information, presently the number of RTI applications received from you are 44 in number. Your queries do not substantiate public interest.
- S.No. 19
- File No. - 122814
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of the purchase orders issued for Mock up model of IMRH Helicopter for display in Aero India 2017 by HAL Helicopter Division, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2005 to 14/02/2022.
- Reply - NIL
- S.No. – 20
- File No. - 122816
- Information sought - The appellant has sought the following information: Provide copies of the purchase order issued for MAKE-II projects by HAL Helicopter Division, along with file notings for the period from 01/01/2014 to 14/02/2022
- Reply - a) Purchase orders are confidential agreements between two entities and hence cannot be disclosed. b) The helicopters manufactured by HAL are being largely supplied to lndian defence forces, disclosure of any such information would be a national security breach. c) lt is observed that you as a RTI applicant are asking diverse and lengthy information, presently the number of RTI applications received from you are 44 in number. Your queries do not substantiate public interest.
Grounds for filing Second Appeals:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
It was decided after consultation with the appellant that the cases would all be discussed together and the crux of the information sought for in all these cases would be brought out by the appellant and the CPIO would be given directions accordingly.
The appellant submitted that the CPIO’s efforts should be to ensure transparency in their functioning and secrecy should be avoided. He further submitted that the cases can be dealt with collectively as what he desires is information and maximum disclosure u/s 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; of the RTI Act. He further pointed out that suo-moto disclosable information cannot be treated as exempted under the RTI Act. He also suggested that if inspection is offered for the information sought which are readily available, he would be satisfied. The appellant alleged that since 8 years the public authority had not updated their website thereby failing to ensure suo moto disclosure.
The CPIO sought some time to implement suo moto disclosure. On a query, the CPIO submitted that the information sought are relating to two parts - the first category is directly related to production. The second category is not related to production. He also informed the Commission that the updation of website is in the domain of the Corporate office.
The appellant also contended that the FAA failed to dispose of the first appeals and provided no hearing to the appellant. In his second appeals he further submitted that he had received no information till date. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information. He further requested for compensation as well as penalty on the CPIO.
The CPIO requested for a last opportunity so that he can ensure effective inspection of the information sought by the appellant and ensure disclosure is made wherever the information is not exempted under the RTI Act.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO on 12.03.2022 sent a reply to the appellant in respect of the above cases except case serial no. 1, 15 and 19 as mentioned in the above list. However, those replies were not annexed in the second appeals but were submitted by the CPIO to the Commission before the hearing.
In all his replies he mentioned that on receipt of the RTI applications he had sent an e-mail. The CPIO is informed that such callous replies cannot be admitted under the RTI Act. Furthermore, he failed to attach the copy of the e-mails and therefore, the content of the same is not known.
On perusal of the reply in each of the cases, except case nos. 1, 15 and 19, the reply was found to not have invoked any exemption clause in cases of denial of information. The information denied was not amplified or justified with proper exemption clauses under the RTI Act. Furthermore, information sought in case nos. 3, 13 and 15 are related to suo moto disclosure and therefore the reply given was grossly improper. In respect of case nos. 5, 6 and 14 information sought is personal to third parties and hence stands exempted 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. 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.
In respect of case no. 9, the information sought is based on seeking clarifications and hence, not covered within the ambit of Sec 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.
Be that as it may, the CPIO failed to provide any justification for denial, as well as for not providing replies in respect of case nos. 1, 15 and 19. Moreover, the omission of the FAA in issuing not speaking orders and disposing of the first appeals is a matter of grave concern. The respondents turning a blind eye to the CIC notice and not sending a suitable explanation before the hearing is deplorable. Moreover, the replies in all the cases are without invoking the suitable exemption clause and this shows the lackadaisical attitude of the CPIO.
The Commission observed that CPIO can segregate the above listed cases into 5 categories of information as follows:
- Information available and disclosable.
- Information not available with them or any other public authority, so no possible action.
- Information available but exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
- Information available but voluminous and therefore inspection to be given
- Information available and should be suo moto disclosed u/s 4 of the RTI Act.
Reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) (Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
“Para 14 of the said order The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.”
Taking note of the above decision, as well as the CPIO’s plea that a total 44 RTI applications were filed, the Commission observes that there is no express bar on number of RTI applications that can be filed by a citizen. The idea to prevent frivolous litigation cannot be construed as preventing sincere applications seeking information related to Sec 4 implementation etc.
After a thorough discussion during the hearing, the CPIO is directed to revisit 17 of the the 20 cases listed above and provide information as applicable under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The CPIO is hereby directed to provide a point-wise reply individually case by case to the appellant on all the above-mentioned cases within 25 days from the date of receipt of this order. While doing so, no reply is required to be given in respect of case nos. 5, 6 and 14 as the information sought in these cases are exempted 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. 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.
In respect of case no.3 a copy of the annual report shall be sent to the appellant for the periods available with the corporate office under intimation to the Commission within 25 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In respect of the rest of the cases, either information shall be given applying Sec 10 of the RTI Act or a proper denial with the appropriate exemption clause being explained in the reply shall be given.
In respect of all the cases, the CPIO shall provide inspection to the appellant as and where asked for by him and at a mutually convenient date and time and that particular point(s) shall be replied to as covered during inspection with proper acknowledgment from the appellant. Where after the inspection the appellant seeks copies of any specific documents, the same shall be provided duly certified at the normal rate for photocopying charges.
The PIO, Shri S.G Mane, DGM (Security) shall note that any further non-implementation of the RTI Act, if informed through any non-compliance application by the appellant, the same shall be viewed seriously and Sec 20 proceedings shall be initiated for explanation and action.
The 20 appeals listed above are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Raghu S v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), File no.:- CIC/HALTD/A/2022/116372 + 19 others (As per annexure), Date of Decision : 10/02/2023
ANNEXURE Sl No. File Numbers 1. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/116372 2. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118421 3. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118423 4. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118424 5. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118426 6. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118428 7. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118532 8. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118533 9. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118536 10. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118538 11. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118540 12. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118541 13. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118542 14. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/118546 15. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/122810 16. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/122811 17. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/122812 18. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/122813 19. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/122814 20. CIC/HALTD/A/2022/122816