Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Department Of Shipping on 11 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DPTOS/A/2021/660049
SAMIR SARDANA ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Ports Global Limited,
RTI Cell, 4th Floor, Nirman
Bhavan, M.P. road, Mazagaon,
Mumbai-4000010, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/01/2023
Date of Decision : 27/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 06/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 24/10/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.08.2021 seeking the following information:
"Financials PIO to provide annual report, annual accounts and auditors report of the company and its JVs , Associates and Subsidiaries (such as "India Ports Global 1 Chamber Free Zone"), from FY 2018 TO FY 2021 (preferably in e-format) as the information is not on the web page (http://www.ipgl.co.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=1&ls_id=540&lid=2) EXIM at Chabhar PIO to provide the quantity of the break bulk import cargo shipped via the 2 berths at Shahid Beheshti port, as under o Year, Berth No.1 and 2 (separately),Name of item/commodity, IF value of imports, Quantity of cargo, Load Port, Country of Origin of Cargo, Destination Nation as per BL PIO to provide the quantity of the containerized import cargo shipped via the 2 berths at Shahid Beheshti port, as under o Year,Berth No.1 and 2 (separately),Name of item/commodity, IF value of imports, Quantity of cargo, Number of Containers (20/40 feet),TEU, Load Port, Country of Origin of Cargo, Destination Nation as per BL PIO to provide the quantity of the break, bulk containerized cargo shipped via the 2 berths at Shahid Beheshti port, as under o Year, Berth No.1 and 2 (separately), Name of item/commodity, FOB value of exports, Quantity of cargo, Number of Containers (20/40 feet),TEU, Discharge Port, Destination Nation as per BL DPR PIO to state the name of the Consultant who made the DPR for the investment and upgradation of the 2 berths at Shahid Beheshti port and the Chabhar SEZ PIO to provide a copy of the DPR and the Business Plan, for the investment and upgradation of the 2 berths at Shahid Beheshti port and the Chabhar SEZ (preferably in e-format) Consulting Fees earned by India Ports Global Limited PIO to state the value of the consulting fees earned by IPGL in the last 5 years, as under :
o Year, Amount of Consulting Fees, Nature of Fees feasibility (such as studies, pre-investment studies, market research, DPR, technical consulting, investment advice etc.) Kandla/JNPT PIO to provide the details of the exports from Kandla port which were discharged or transshipped from Chabhar o Year, Discharged at Berth No.1 and 2 (separately),Name of item/commodity, FOB value of exports, Quantity of cargo (Tons) 2 or TEU or Number of Containers (20/40 feet), Country of Origin of Cargo (besides India),Destination Nation as per BL PIO to provide the details of the exports from JNPT, which were discharged or transhipped from Chabhar o Year, Discharged at Berth No.1 and 2 (separately),Name of item/commodity, FOB value of exports, Quantity of cargo (Tons) or TEU or Number of Containers (20/40 feet),Country of Origin of Cargo (besides India),Destination Nation as per BL Levies With respect to the exim trade via the 2 berths, taken on lease at Shahid Beheshti port, PIO to state the income earned by the berths, as under:
o Year, Amount of INCOME earned, NATURE of Income earned With respect to the exim trade via the 2 berths, taken on lease at Shahid Beheshti port, PIO to state the levies paid to the Chabhar port or the Iranian Ports Authority, as under:
o Year, Amount of fees paid to Chabhar port or the Iranian Ports Authority, Nature of the Fees paid Staff PIO to state the number of staff employed in the 2 berths as employees or contract staff, who are Indian Nationals, and their role in the said berths, as at end of FY 2020 Budget PIO to state the amount allocated by the Indian Budget from FY 2017 to date for the 2 berths of the Shahid Beheshti port,for capital and revenue expenditure (separately) o Year, Amount allocated for Capital expenditure, Amount allocated for Revenue expenditure, Amount actually spent Chabar Investment and operations PIO to provide the amount of investment actually made in the 2 berths of the Shahid Beheshti at Chabhar,as under :
o Year, Berth No.1 and 2 (separately), Amount of investment, Name of Equipment's supplied/ installed/purchased PIO to provide the amount of expenditure made for operation of the berths in Chabhar,in the 2 berths of the Shahid Beheshti at Chabhar, as under :
o Year, Berth No.1 and 2 (separately),Amount of expenditure, Name of Expenditure Contract and MOU Copy of the commercial contract signed in May 2016, between India Ports Global Private Ltd (IPGPL) and Iran's Arya Banade 3 Copy of the Inter-Governmental MoU signed between India and Iran on 5 May 2015 Exim PIO to state the amount of the US Dollars 150 million credit facility to Iran through Export-
Import Bank of India, which has been drawn down and used, for each year, as under o Year, Amount used, Purpose of usage of funds Zahadan PIO to state the amount invested by the GOI or the company in the rail link to Zahadan, for each year separately SEZ PIO to state the amount invested by the GOI or the company into the Chabahar Special Economic Zone, in the last 3 years, for each year separately PIO to provide the names of the Indian Companies, who had committed to invest in the Chabhar SEZ IRCON PIO to provide a copy of the Bank guarantee provided to the Iranian Govt, for the construction of the rail link, to Zahadan BG PIO to provide a copy of the Bank Guarantee provided to the Iranian Govt,for the construction of the rail link,to Zahadan The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.09.2021 with 10 Annexures of information as well as indicated unavailability of information on some of the points of the RTI Application.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.10.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.4
Respondent: Shailesh, CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant argued certain key points of his written submissions, contents of which he insisted to be placed on record, stating as under:5 6
The CPIO also relied on his written submissions dated 09.01.2023 stating as under:
"1. The Respondent CPIO has duly provided all the information pertaining to the Respondent Company as sought by the complainant vide its email dated 06.09.2021.The allegation of the complainant that the PIO should have sent the reply on the company's letter head and stamp of IPGL, is frivolous as the email has been sent through the official email id of the respondent which holds the same legal sanctity.
2. The respondent CPIO cannot furnish the information pertaining to EXIM, Zahadan, SEZ, IRCON, BG as the same are international projects undertaken by Government of India and other foreign countries viz. Iran etc. and no information 7 is available with IPGL regarding the same and hence PIO cannot even transfer the application u/s 6(3) of RTI act as is being sought by the complainant and the complainant itself has to reach the concerned authority directly.
3. The allegation of the complainant/Appellant that CPIO has not uploaded the Annual report of IPGL as required u/s 4 of RTI Act on IPGL Portal even after request is also frivolous. In due compliance of Section 4 of RTI Act IPGL has computerized all its records including the Annual Accounts and Reports and the same are easily accessible in public domain. The copies of the Annual accounts and reports are also duly available for inspection at the office of IPGL and also duly filled with the Registrar of Companies and are easily accessible on ROC website. The copy of Annual accounts and Reports in the computerized form has also been shared with Complainant/Appellant.
4.It is further to submit that with respect of grievance of the Complainant/Appellant that FAA has not provided physical hearing in this matter, the Respondent hereby submit that the they have provided all the information. However, in case the Complainant/Appellant wants a physical hearing or inspection of any other documents the same can be conducted by the Complainant/Appellant at the registered office of the Respondent. The case may be refereed back by CIC to CPIO/FAA, IPGL and IPGL shall arrange for the same.
5. Further, with respect to information sought regarding IPGCFZ(Subsidiary of IPGL formulated under laws of Iran) IPGL has gathered the information from its subsidiary company and forwarded it to Complainant/Appellant (as received).Hence in no case the above information can be certified by IPGL(Respondent company)."
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific and humungous and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authority to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIO to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Yet, it is noteworthy that the CPIO has attempted to decipher the RTI Application with utmost diligence to provide the maximum permissible information and has also informed about the unavailability of information on the relevant points.8
In the facts of the instant case, the Commission also relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
It is pertinent to note that the Commission is unable to even appreciate the far stretching and almost abstract arguments of the Appellant contained in his written submissions.
Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
9The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10