Central Information Commission
Champak Banerjee vs Bird Group Of Companies on 15 May, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
केन्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BDGOC/A/2018/633745
Champak Banerjee ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Orissa Minerals ...प्रनतिािी/Respondent
Development Co. Limited, Kolkata.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10-07-2018 FA : 14-08-2018 SA : 11-10-2018
CPIO : 09-08-2018 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 13-05-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Orissa Minerals Development Co. Limited, Kolkata seeking following information:-
1. "Specific date on which MD of OMDC sent a letter to CVC sometimes in last week of July, 2014 or 1st week of August, 2014.
2. Name of the MD who has signed & addressed the said letter to CVC.
3. Mode of dispatch.
4. Proof of dispatch.
5. If sent by hand, date of delivery.
6. Copy of the said letter."
2. The CPIO responded on 09-08-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 14-08-2018 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Page 1 of 5Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Champak Banerjee attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Ashish Srivastava, Dy. Manager participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the sought for information should be provided to him.
5. The respondent reiterated their reply dated 09-08-2018 as follows:-
"The information sought by the appellant is exempted u/Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the CPIO has not applied his mind while replying to the RTI application and has also not provided any justification for the exemptions so claimed for denial of the information pertaining to the letter sent by the MD of OMDC to the CVC. Therefore, the CPIO is hereby issued a warning to be careful in future. In this context, this Commission refers to the decision dated 04-08-2011 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in J. P. Agrawal v.
UOI and Ors., W.P.(C) 7232/2009, whereby the role and responsibility of the CPIO has been aptly discussed as under:-
"8...The PIO is expected to apply his/her mind, duly analyse the material before him/her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
7. Merely claiming the exemptions under Section 8 is not enough to absolve the CPIO from performing the duties cast upon him under the RTI Act, 2005. It is relevant to mention here that in order to deny information under any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason as to why such exemption has been claimed. In this regard, this Commission refers to the decision dated 15-12-2010 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, 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."Page 2 of 5
8. This Commission finds the following observation(s) of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 dated 03-12- 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."
9. 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 has held as follows:-
"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 Page 3 of 5 what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation."
10. Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Adesh Kumar v. UOI and Ors., W.P. (C) 3542/ 2014 dated 16-12-2014 has held as under:-
"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."
11. In view of the above, this Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a revised reply to the appellant thereby showing justification for the exemptions so claimed for denial of the information pertaining to the letter sent by the MD of OMDC to the CVC, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) दिनांक / Date:13-05-2020 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यावपत प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Limited, Manager (Pers.) & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Regd.
Office: AG- 104, "Sourav Abasan", 2nd Floor, Salt Lake City, Sector-II, Kolkata, W. B.-700091"
2. Mr. Champak Banerjee Page 5 of 5