Information about Shram Suvidha cases was denied u/s 8(1)(d) without any explanation - CIC: Merely claiming an exemption under Section 8 is not enough to absolve a PIO from performing the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act; Warning issued to PIO
17 Sep, 2020Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. List of 7-A cases and Shram Suvidha cases with P.F. Code numbers, name of the establishments, date of initiation, period of inquiry and its status (i.e. date of conclusion/ pending) for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2018 in respect of Nellore District. (Zone wise)
2. Out of above what are the P.F. Code numbers and name of the establishments assigned under Shram Suvidha Portal during the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.
3. List of 7-A cases and Shram Suvirdha cases with P.F. Code number, name of the establishment, date of initiation, period of inquiry and its status i.e. date of conclusion/pending for the period from 06/2012 to 06/2016 in respect of Sri M. Sammaiah, the then EO of Chittor District.
Grounds for Complaint
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that misleading information was provided to him, hence necessary action may be taken against the CPIO. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply within the stipulated time period was given to the complainant on 25.04.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the complainant is aggrieved with the exemption claimed by the CPIO 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; of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the CPIO provided an explanation regarding the applicability of 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. Even though the justification given is satisfactory, however, no such explanation was given by the CPIO in his reply dated 25.04.2018. Therefore, the reply was incomplete. It is to be noted by the CPIO that merely claiming an exemption under Section 8 is not enough to absolve a CPIO from performing the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act. It is relevant to mention here that in order to deny information under any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed which was not done.
The Commission expresses its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the CPIO for his failure to give a proper and complete reply to the complainant. This shows that the RTI matters are being handled in a very casual manner by him.
Decision:
In view of the above, a strict warning is issued to the concerned CPIO to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and to ensure that in all the future cases, if any exemption is claimed by him, the same should be properly justified and in case such a lapse is repeated in future, the Commission will be constrained to initiate penal proceedings against him.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to educate the concerned officials including the CPIOs and the FAAs about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of their duties and responsibilities so that such avoidable lapses do not occur again in future.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: O Y Sankar Reddy v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation in File No.: CIC/EPFOG/C/2019/114953, Date of Decision: 26/08/2020