Central Information Commission
Arvind Goswami vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 31 May, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IREDA/A/2019/122066 -UM
Mr.Arvind Goswami
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd.,
3rd floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi 110066
..... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2021
Date of Decision : 31.05.2021
Date of RTI application 12.12.2018
CPIO's response 06.02.2019
Date of the First Appeal 20.02.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 01.04.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.05.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points as under:-
Page 1 of 5The CPIO, vide letter dated06.02.2019, denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (e) (j) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal.The FAA, vide order dated01.04.2019, upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Arvind Goswami through AC;
Respondent: Absent;
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent's Office landline number available on the record of the Commission remained unanswered despite repeated attempts. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information sought in the larger public interest was denied by the CPIO referring to Section 8(1) (e), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, without any justification. The Appellant while reiterating the background of the case alleged that IREDA had sanctioned and released loans of about Rs.12 Cr to M/s Page 2 of 5 Satyanarayana power Ltd., (SSPL) during the years 2001-2003, for putting up the 4 MW Biomass power Project. The Appellant further alleged that the company had defaulted in repayments of IREDA dues. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that the company and its directors have also not honoured the cheques issued by them for repayment of IREDA's dues and thereafter, a cheque bounce court cases was filed by IREDA which are pending since 2002i.e. more than 15 years old. Moreover, the Appellant further submitted that the court order dated 02.11.2017 had declared Mr. A Venkat Reddy and T Konda Reddy, as absconders and added their names in the list of absconders as proclaimed Offenders. Therefore, the information sought should be provided to him in the light of larger public interest.
The Commission observed that as per the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. And the CPIO responding to the RTI application, could not justify their position as to how the disclosure of generic information such as number of cheque bounce cases pending against the Guarantors of IREDA (numerical data) / current status of the recovery / whether the names of the Guarantors have been included in the list of Absconders as per Courts Order (in affirmative or negative) / name of the police station where the Court's order was forwarded, would be in contravention to any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 While observing that in order to deny information under any of the exemption 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, the Commission therefore referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case."
Moreover, as per the provisions of Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005, where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection.
Page 3 of 5Furthermore, the Commission finds the following observation of the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC &Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 pertinent in this matter.
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 had held that :
"19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation...............
22. ...........The mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. This burden the Respondent has failed to discharge."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Adesh Kumar v. UOI and Ors. W.P. (C) 3542/ 2014 dated 16.12.2014 had held as under:
Page 4 of 5"10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the FAA also indicates that the aspect as to how the disclosure of information would impede prosecution has not been considered. Merely, citing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act would not absolve the public authority from discharging its onus as required to claim such exemption. Thus, neither the FAA nor the CIC has questioned the Public Authority as to how the disclosure of information would impede the prosecution."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Superior Court's referred above, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application of the Appellant and furnish the generic information to him such as number of cheque bounce cases pending against the Guarantors of IREDA (numerical data) / current status of the recovery / whether the names of the Guarantors have been included in the list of Absconders as per Courts Order (in the affirmative or negative) / name of the police station where the Court's order was forwarded, etc., as held on their record within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order respecting the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 and also taking into consideration the exemption clauses of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितएवंसत्यापितप्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 31.05.2021 Page 5 of 5