Information about dividend distributed to the beneficiaries by ITI Colony Welfare Committee - PIO: The dividends are paid as per the decision of IOC; There is possibility of unrest among different unions if it is disclosed - CIC: Provide the information

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

 1. No. of employees working in ITI Raebareli in May 2018.

2. No. of buildings constructed by ITI Raebareli and have been allotted to the employees/officers.

3. Whether any dividend was distributed to the beneficiaries by the ITI Colony Welfare Committee (Gas Agency).

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that the reply provided by the CPIO is not proper. Moreover, Sec 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; exemption claimed by the CPIO is not justified. He further submitted that there were irregularities in the dividend distributed to the beneficiaries by the ITI Colony Welfare Committee (Gas Agency). The CPIO reiterated the reply dated 08.06.2018 and submitted that the information sought by the appellant in respect of points no. 3 to 8 of the RTI application cannot be given as the disclosure of the information sought may cause a breach of commercial confidence. He further submitted that the dividends are paid as per the decision of IOC and there is possibility of unrest among different unions if this information is made public.

Observations:

 Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO could not justify the applicability of Sec 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. Points no. 3 to 8 were examined and it was found that the disclosure of the information in respect of points no. 3 to 6 and 8 would not breach commercial confidence of respondents and the third parties. The process should be transparent to ensure fairness in the system. In respect of point no. 7 information sought cannot be given as the list contains personal information of third parties.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a point wise reply to the Appellant in respect of points no. 3 to 6 and 8 of the RTI application within 10 days of the receipt of the order. Point no. 7 is 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. of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ramkaran Singh v. CPIO ITI Limited in Decision no.: CIC/ITILT/A/2018/146255/02498, Date of Decision: 02/01/2020