Copy of the monthly progress report of contracts, orders, copy of cash book entry etc. was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & (e) of the RTI Act - PIO was unable to provide any justification for denial - CIC directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. To whom the payment in respect of financial Voucher No. 43/1180 dated 20/12/2016 was made.

2. Copy of the monthly progress report of contracts for the month of September 2017.

3. Copies of Part-I Orders for the period 01/12/2016 to 31/12/2016 regarding officiating arrangement of GE (U) W/S, Delhi Cantt- 10, if any.

4. Who was performing the duties of GE (U) W/S during the month of December 2016.

5. Copy of Cash book entry (CBI) S No. 39 to 50 for the year 2016-2017

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not accept the RTI information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The representative of the appellant submitted that initially the CPIO denied to accept his RTI application when he tried to deliver the same by hand and thereafter instead of passing direction to the CPIO to provide the information, the FAA summarily dismissed the appeal illegally and arbitrarily in gross violation of the RTI Act.

The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 08.01.2019. He further submitted that after receipt of the CIC’s hearing notice, another reply was given to the appellant on 22.01.2021 whereby the information was denied claiming exemption 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; & (e) of the RTI Act.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that initially no reply was given by the CPIO as the RTI application was never received by him. The contention of the appellant is that earlier also he used to file the RTI application by hand and in the present case, the CPIO had deliberately refused to receive the same. It is further noted that the FAA had failed to take note of the issues raised by the appellant in his first appeal and rather than directing the CPIO to give a reply to the RTI application, he had summarily rejected the first appeal.

During the hearing, the CPIO while reiterating the contents of the reply dated 22.01.2021 submitted that the information cannot be disclosed as the same is exempted 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; & (e) of the RTI Act. Per contra, the representative of the appellant submitted that he had sought very general information which otherwise should be available on the website but the CPIO is deliberately not providing the desired information. The CPIO on being asked as to how the exemption claimed by him is justified, he was unable to provide any justification. Under these circumstances, the Commission is not in a position to accept the exemption claimed by the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant and in case any exemption is claimed by him, the same should be properly justified.

Decision:

In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Subhash Lohia v. Military Engineer Services and GE (U) Water Supply in File no.: CIC/MESER/A/2019/104091, Date of Decision: 28/01/2021