Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 17 October, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
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/HPCLD/A/2023/600783
Shri SAMIR SARDANA ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL)
Date of Hearing : 11.10.2024
Date of Decision : 11.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.09.2022
PIO replied on : 03.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 09.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 01.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"M Energy • PIO to provide a copy of the 3 Awards passed by the Arbitral Tribunal passed (09.01.2014, 27.09.2017, 15.06.2018 respectively) in favour of HPCL in the said matter • PIO to provide the Order Ref.No.of the Bombay High Court judgment setting aside the orders of the Arbitral Tribunal,as above • PIO to provide the Order Ref.No.of the Bombay High Court DB judgment setting aside the orders of the Bombay High Court Single Judge,as above 11 • PIO to provide a copy of the Malaysian High Court,in Kuala Lumpur,which allowed the application of M/s M3nergy to set aside the enforcement order with liberty to file fresh proceedings, if HPCL/ PPCL succeed later."
The CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Mumbai vide letter dated 03.11.2022 replied as under:-
"This is reference to your application dated nil on various issues where you sought information/documents. Your application is not marked to any specific CPIO and was forwarded to me for the limited purpose of dealing with your queries related to M energy, wherein you have sought copies of arbitration award and court orders.
Page 1 The information sought by you pertaining to M energy cannot be provided at this stage since the matter is subjudice before the Bombay High Court. Moreover, it is a proceeding between two private parties. I do not see any public purpose in your asking for this information. The limited reference is disposed of accordingly. Your other queries are being looked after by other CPIOs from whom you will get response directly."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.11.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant had filed RTI seeking information related to M energy.
Appellant: None for the Appellant Respondent: Shri Tarun Prakash Sr. Mgr, CPIO & Pratik Kalware The Appellant remained absent during the hearing even after the service of prior notice of hearing by the Commission. Hence, the opportunity of the Appellant to present his case is closed on the ground of non- appearance.
The CPIO submitted that information sought pertaining to M energy cannot be provided at this stage since the matter is subjudice before the Bombay High Court. Moreover, it is a proceeding between two private parties. The CPIO further referred to the contents of the written submission dated 08.oct 2024 wherein it was stated that:
"The PIO rejected the above information sought by the Applicant on the following grounds: (a) since the matter is sub judice before the Bombay High Court; (b) it is a proceeding between two private parties; and (c) no public purpose.
"the information sought in RTI application has not been provided, on the grounds seeking protection & exemption under Sections 42A of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1896 & Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1998 (inserted by Act No. 33 of 2019 dated 09.08.2019) states as follows: *42A. Confidentiality of information. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the arbitrator, the arbitral institution and the parties to the arbitration agreement shall maintain confidentiality of all arbitral proceedings except award where its disclosure is necessary for the purpose of implementation and enforcement of award" Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005, under which the PIO is not under obligation to disclose "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"
"The Applicant has sought the order reference numbers of the decisions/orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay -- both of which have been rejected by the then PIO. It is submitted that in view of Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Page 2 details of the Award have to be kept confidential by the parties involved. Further, it is open to the Applicant to get the information on the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the public website of the High Court. The information sought cannot be said to be "Held by" or is "under the control" of the PIO. It is held by a different authority. The Pi0 being part of the public authority which is party to the arbitration proceedings, is prohibited under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1896 in disclosing the information. "The Applicant has sought copies of the order of the Malaysian High Court in Kuala Lumpur. It is submitted that Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 permits disclosure only for the purpose of implementation and enforcement of the arbitration award. The process of enforcement is still ongoing in Malaysia. Further, the information sought cannot be said to be "held by" or is "under the control" of the PIO. Any orders of the Malaysian High Court in Kuala Lumpur which is public in nature is made available by the said foreign court following the applicable procedures of the foreign court."
Decision:
Upon the Perusal of the Case records and the written submission dated 08.oct 2024, the Commission observes that correct & accurate reply has been furnished to the Appellant. The CPIO is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 08 Oct 2024 to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order and to send a compliance report to the Commission within 01 week thereafter.
The Commission does not find any merits for the further intervention. Thus, the Appeal stands disposed off.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)