ODI List - Information about number of officers in the ODI list, those exonerated, date of review meeting was denied u/s 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) - CIC: Disclosure would defeat the very purpose of surveillance conducted through the established procedure of ODI
16 Nov, 2020O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) the Chief Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara Zone, Central Excise Building, Race Course Circle, Badodara, Gujarat. The appellant seeking information on five points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) No. of officers in the said ODI list as on date;
(ii) No. of officers whose cases have been exonerated/acquitted of (i) above;
(iii) Date of review meeting of the ODI status of officers (ii) above, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 17.09.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 11.10.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri S R Hirulkar, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 24.08.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that the CPIO vide its letter dated 23.08.2018 had denied disclosure of information 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. But the FAA vide its order dated 11.10.2018 had observed that “ODI list is highly confidential. Therefore, the disclosure of any kind of information would therefore defeat the very purpose of surveillance which is conducted through the established procedure of ODI list. The information is related to third party is personal in nature and no larger public interest/purpose has been given by the appellant. The confidentiality of the ODI/Agreed lists is critical for the success of the management decisions about key assignments to its employees, lest for want of reflection on the background, character and conduct of specific officers, management hands over sensitive assignments into undeserving hands whose actions may be injurious both to the public authority as well as to the public interest”. The respondent submitted that therefore, the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and 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.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent in its initial reply has denied disclosure of information 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. However, the FAA vide its order dated 11.10.2018 has given a detailed observation regarding the nondisclosure of information pertaining to ODI list. The FAA has denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and 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. The Commission also agreed with the stand taken by the FAA that ODI list is highly confidential.
Therefore, the disclosure of any kind of information would therefore defeat the very purpose of surveillance which is conducted through the established procedure of ODI list. The appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
7. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Information Commissioner
Citation: A K Banerjee v. Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara Zone in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCEVD/A/2018/174752, / Date of order: 01.09.2020