A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Appellant sought information regarding the date on which a postal order has been encashed by Jhansi Development Authority - PIO: Information is not available - CIC: Reply does not contain any reference to the record retention policy; Provide revised reply

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Vide order dated 24/12/2012, the CIC had ruled that the “National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry” is a Public Authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act - CIC: Public Authority can’t deny information on the behest of any resolution taken by them

28 Mar, 2016

Information Sought:

The appellant sought information on 9 points reference to order dated 24/12/2012 in F.No.CIC/LS/A/2012/002516) holding “National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry” (here after NJCS), the information sought are as follows:

1) Number of affected employees and contractor workers of steel industry, whose interest are involved in NJCS.

2) Whether NJCS as a “Public Authority”, has complied with the provisions laid by legislators u/s 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.

3) Name and designation of the official(s), who is/are responsible to maintain its website and to comply with the provisions u/s 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.

4) Address of the website to obtain information under the Act.

5) Complete information including related documents/ file notings /correspondence on DEMANDS placed by each trade union for fresh (after expiry of 8th round, MOA on 29th April 2010) round of agreement on NJCS.

6) Complete information including related documents/ file notings /correspondence on MINUTES of MEETINGS till date, for fresh (9th) round of agreement on NJCS.

7) Total expenditure till date incurred for fresh (9th) round of agreement on NJCS.

8) Copy of resolution passed by NJCS in 247th meeting on D-15/06/2007, to prohibit flow of information.

9) Name and designation of the persons, who are signatories for the abovementioned resolution.

Background of the case:

The appellant filed an RTI application on dated 22.10.2013. CPIO vide its letter dated 11 Nov 2013 provided reply as under:

“Point no 1 to 7: NJCS is an independent body. NJCS has passed a resolution in 247^th meeting held on 15th June, 2007 which is as under:

An issue was brought forth before the members wherein individuals /parties are seeking different information pertaining to NJCS through RTI Act. It was decided that NJCS is a bipartite forum which comprise of workers and management representatives. Decisions taken in NJCS are only circulated in the form of Notes of Conclusions among the members of NJCS only. The same are for internal use of members only and as such, cannot be shared.” Further, the matter for providing information under RTI Act was again deliberated in details in the 272nd meeting of NJCS held on 8th July, 2013 and the NJCS collective unanimously reiterated the decision taken in the 247th meeting of NJCS held on 15th June 2007 and passed resolution that NJCS is a bi-partite forum and as such information pertaining to NJCS cannot be provided under RTI Act.....”

FAA on dated 26.12.2013 disposed of the appeal by upholding the decision of the CPIO. He further states that in relation to point 1 to 7 information pertaining to bipartite forum i.e. NJCS, is available to SAIL in fiduciary relationship, and no larger public interest appears to warrant the disclosure of such information. Hence, comes under the purview of Sec 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005.

Relevant facts emerging from hearing:

Both the parties are present and heard. Appellant stated that no certified copies of the information sought are provided in respect of Point no. 8 and 9. The FAA passed a order and takes the plea of Sec 8(1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; exemption. According to the appellant, no information was provided in respect of Point 1 to 7.The appellant prayed that he needs all the information in certified copies.

The respondent contends that NJCS is a Bi Partite forum constituted in 1969, in which Labour Ministry said that the Committee will function independently, 71240 employees are covered by NJCS agreement. Respondent also enlighten the Commission with the resolution taken by the NJCS in its 247th meeting, which was held on 15 June 2007. The impugned extracts of the resolution are:

“An issue was brought before the members wherein individuals/ parties are seeking different information pertaining to NJCS through RTI Act. It was decided that NJCS is a bipartite forum which comprise of workers and management representatives. The decisions taken in NJCS are only circulated in the form of Notes of Conclusions among the Members of NJCS only. The same are for internal use of members only and as such, cannot be shared.”

The respondent further submits that information in relation to point 8 and 9 was provided. The appellant relied on the decision of the Commission in F.No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002516 in the matter of M D N Panicker vs SAIL where the Commission held as under:

“4. In view of the factual matrix, the decisions taken by the CPIO and AA cannot be approved as 80 to 85% of the funds for this body come from SAIL Steel plants. Hence, this entity is held to be a public authority u/s 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; (d)(i) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide a copy of this impugned Rules to the appellant in 04 weeks.

5. Shri Agarwal, however, has reservations about placing the activities of NJCS in public domain. It is his apprehension that if RTI gate is opened for this entity, then this appellant and many others may come forward to seek confidential information which would jeopardize its functioning.

Decision:-

Pursuant to the CIC order dated 24/12/2012 in F.No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002516, “National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry” is a Public Authority u/s 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act, 2005. National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry as a public authority is under an obligation under the statute to provide such information to maintain transparency. The resolution taken by NJCS in its 247th meeting is not in conformity with the provisions of RTI Act. Public Authority can’t deny information on the behest of any resolution taken by them unless it is exempted under Sec 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Prima facie the information sought under Para 1,2,3,4 and 7 are information as per section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. While information sought under Para 5 and 6 which is documents/File Notings/ Correspondence on DEMANDS placed by each trade union for fresh 9th round of agreement of National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry and documents/ File notings/ Correspondence on MINUTES OF MEETINGS till date for 9th round of agreement of National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry respectively can’t be given as it holds information relating to economic interests of the State , and the respondent is in fiduciary relationship with the workers.

The Commission is of the view that DEMANDS placed by trade union is a matter of concern between employer and employee, the respondent is in fiduciary relationship with the appellant. Thus, divulgence of information on DEMANDS placed by trade union and MINUTES of MEETINGS will prejudicially affect the economic interest of the Public authority.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission consider the information sought under Point no. 5 and 6 is exempted as per Sec 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission hereby directs the respondent to provide information in certified copies to the appellant in respect of Point no. 1,2,3,4 and 7 and in respect of Para 8 and 9 information is already provided and certified copies of the same may be given to the appellant within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri R.K. Mishra v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) Delhi in F.No.CIC/RM/A/2014/001091-YA

Vide order dated 24/12/2012, the CIC had ruled that the “National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry” is a Public Authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act - CIC: Public Authority can’t deny information on the behest of any resolution taken by them

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.