The appellant before the Commission complained that FAA did not give him the opportunity of hearing by which he could have explained the nature of information sought.
Decision Note:
“The Commission directs the CPIO to furnish the information to the appellant, free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
As regards the appellant’s submissions that he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing by the FAA, it is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided. In view of this, we would only like to suggest that the FAA should, as far as possible, give the appellant, including the third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of the RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant.”
[Pradeep A. Ingole vs. CPIO, Department of Posts, Navi Mumbai Division, Panvel: Decided on 03-04- 2013. Citation RTIR II (2013) 55]
- Fiduciary Relationship (Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act):
The appellant before the Commission submitted that the sudden fall in the share prices of the ICICI Bank had been widely reported and he wanted to know about the entire matter, by inspecting the records generated by the SEBI in the course of its investigation. He could not understand why the CPIO has not allowed him to inspect the records. In response, the respondent submitted that the press release issued by the SEBI contained whatever details about the entire matter that could have been disclosed without breaching the confidentiality of the information received from various other entities including stock exchanges and, thus, he justified the response of the CPIO.
CIC in his Order stated:
“We have carefully considered the facts of the case. Admittedly, the newspapers had widely reported about the fall in the share price of the ICICI Bank. As the respondent informed us, the Bank itself had also complained to the SEBI following which a preliminary enquiry had been made. Even if the substance of the enquiry has already been placed in the public domain through a press release, we do not see any particular reason why the rest of the records and documents received/generated by the SEBI in this regard should not be disclosed to the public. The ICICI bank is a major financial institution in the country. A sudden fall in its share price, for whatever reason, has wide implications for the general public and also for millions of investors. Ordinarily, all such information should be placed in the public domain so that people know for sure why this had happened and what implications it would have for the investors. Needless to say, there cannot be a better public interest than this. Therefore, we do not find much merit in the decision of the CPIO to invoke the exemption provision contained in s/s. 1(e) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Even in that s/s., it is very clearly stated that such information can still be disclosed if a larger public interest will be served by that.”
“Keeping all this in view, we are of the opinion that the Appellant should be allowed to inspect all the relevant records relating to this particular case. We direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 15 days of receiving this order and to show him the records and documents, including file noting and correspondence, relating to this matter. Needless to say, if these records and documents contain any commercial confidence of any third party entity, the CPIO shall take steps to serve/mask those records and documents before allowing any inspection.”
[Dr. Terence Stephen Nazareth vs. CPIO, SEBI, Bandra (E), Mumbai: 400 051: Decided on 20-03-21013: Citation: RTIR II (2013)24]
- Personal Information – Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act:
Vide RTI dated 27-06-2011, the appellant had sought EOU Balance Sheet and P/L account details of M/s. Natural Remedies for the period 2004-2010.
CPIO vide letter dated 15-07-2011 informed the appellant that as the information related to a third party their views were sought. The third party objected to the disclosure of the information, as it would affect the competitive and commercial nature of the business of the Company and that litigation was pending between the Company and the applicant before the High Court of Karnataka. The information was denied u/s. 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
CIC in the order stated:
“Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. The CPIO submitted that the documents sought by the appellant i.e. the balance sheet and profit and loss statement are part of Income Tax returns which have been held to be exempt from disclosure by the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has not followed procedures and that the information sought by him was in larger public interest. In response to a query from the Commission, the appellant submitted that he was involved in litigation with the said company.”
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC, [RTIR IV (2012) 2016 (SC)], has held that Income Tax Returns are personal information exempt from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is involved. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO/AA.”
[Kartikey Agarwal vs. DCIO, Circle 12(2) and Addl. CIT, Range – 12, Bamgore: Decided on 01-04-2013: Citation RTIR II (2013) 57]
