Copy of letter given by MoF to PNB to incorporate UTI Trustee Co. along with SBI, BoB and LIC with the Registrar of Companies & copy of Board resolution relating to internal authorization - PIO: appellant was asked to approach the MoF - CIC: order upheld
28 Jan, 2014O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 31-8-2012 requesting for a copy of any letter given by the Ministry of Finance to the Bank to incorporate UTI Trustee Co. along with SBI, Bank of Baroda and LIC with the Registrar of Companies and copy of Board resolution relating to internal authorization, and other related issues.
2. The CPIO responded on 8-10-2012, informing the appellant that points 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 were related to the Ministry of Finance. In so far as points 3, 6 and 8 were considered, the information was denied to the appellant 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; on ground of commercial confidence. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 11-1-2012. The FAA responded on 23-11-2012 and upheld the views of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 18-12-2012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. The respondent was present personally in the hearing. He stated that the appellant had sought information on 8 points in his RTI application of 31-8-2012. The respondent stated that a response to the RTI application was given by the respondent on 8-10-2012. The respondent further explained that the eight points can be divided into two parts. Firstly, points 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 pertained to Ministry of Finance and points 3, 6 and 8 pertained to the bank. Information that related to points 3, 6 and 8 was denied to the appellant 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; of the RTI Act on ground of commercial confidence by the respondent bank.
4. The respondent further explained with respect to points 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 that the background is that the issue pertained to the UTI which few years ago had run into difficulties in which the Ministry of Finance constituted a consortium of bank to take over the administration and handle the shares of the UTI and the banks apart from the PNB, State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and LIC. The respondent explained that the functioning of this consortium was as per guidelines of the Ministry of Finance and was addressing issues pertaining to various authorizations and interconnected issues. The respondent stated that these guidelines had been issued by the Ministry of Finance, and that the PNB is not connected with the formulation of guidelines, hence the appellant was informed that he should approach the Ministry of Finance with regard to the query that he had posed.
5. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision:
7. Orders of the FAA are upheld. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri V.T. Gokhale Parvati Nivas v. Punjab National Bank MARD in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000305/05669