Reason for rejection of request for posting in Hyderabad was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(h) - CIC: disclosure would not harm the commercial interest of the public authority as the dispute is between the employer and employee; exemption u/s 8(1)(h) upheld

ORDER

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri I. R. L. Murthy, has submitted RTI application dated 19 November 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai, seeking information relating to the decision of the competent authority, regretting his representations regarding request for his posting in Hyderabad or Secunderabad, on his promotion to the cadre of ADM, addressed and sent to the Chairman, and copies to MD and ED (Personnel).

2. Vide CPIO order dated 26 November 2012, CPIO denied the information citing the exemption 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; & 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 05 December 2012 to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. December 2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

3. The appellant in his submission said that he sought information regarding the reasons for rejection of his application request for posting in Hyderabad/Secunderabad, on his promotion to the cadre of ADM. He also submitted that the present information, as sought is not related to the court case as claimed under the CPIOs reply.

4. The respondents submitted that the information sought regarding the reasons for rejection of his request for posting in Hyderabad/Secunderabad, on his promotion to the cadre of ADM is connected directly to the pending court case against the appellant. Also the disclosure of information would harm the commercial confidence and commercial interest of the Public authority.

Decision Notice

5. The Commission would not like to accept the submissions by the CPIO that the disclosure of information would harm the commercial confidence and/or commercial interest of the public authority as the dispute in the present case is a matter between the employer and employee. Therefore 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; does not apply in this matter.

6. The Commission upholds the CPIO’s and FAA’s order that the information should not be disclosed 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; of the RTI Act. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri I. R. L. Murthy v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000304/MP