Central Information Commission
Mr.Mohan K Aswani vs Mumbai Port Trust on 31 July, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003656 &
CIC/SS/A/2012/003616
Dated: 31.07.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri Mohan K. Aswani
Name of Respondent : Mumbai Port Trust.
Date of Hearing : 10.07.2013
ORDER
Shri Mohan K. Aswani, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present two identical appeals each dated 17.10.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT), Mumbai for denial of information on Point No. 1, 3 and 4 in response to his RTI application dated 21.2.2012. The matter was scheduled for hearing through videoconferencing. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri P. Mohana Chandran, FAA and Shri Satish Kumar, Sr. Vigilance Officer/CPIO at NIC Videoconferencing Facility Centre, Mumbai.
Facts of the Case:
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 21.2.2012 sought information on Point No. 1, 3 and 4 as follows: "(1) Copies of Annual Returns including moveable/immovable property filed by Shri R. Jayachandran, FA & CAD, of MbPT for the period of 10 years from 2001 to 2011; (3) Copies of complaints received against him during the period lf last ten years; and (4) 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003656 CIC/SS/A/2012/003616 Details of various permissions in regard to purchase of properties or any other purchase granted to him". The CPIO vide letter No. V/RTI/404 dated 20.3.2012 denied information on Point No. 1 u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, on Point No. 3 information was denied u/s 8(1)9g) and (h) of the RTI Act and on Point No. 4 information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. However, aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal on 30.7.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. AA/RTI/AA Order 31/6299 dated 31.8.2012 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
4. During the hearing the respondent FAA states that the appellant sought information on Point No. 1 of the RTI application relating to immovable/movable properties filed by Shri R. Jayachandran, which was denied under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As regards the case registered by CBI against Shri Jayachandran under PC Act, the CBI had filed an FIR in the disproportionate assets case against Shri Jayachandran on 30.11.2011. However, CBI has now informed in January 2013 that the case has been closed by the competent authority and closure report was filed in the competent court, which was accepted by the Special Judge for CBI cases. Ministry of Shipping vide letter dated 22.2.2013 has restored the charge of the post of FA & CAO, MbPT to Shri Jayachandran which was withdrawn by its order dated 6.8.2012. On Point No. 3 the appellant sought copy of the complaint received in August 2010 was denied u/s 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act. The information sought by the appellant is pertaining to third party, which also contains allegations against Shri Jayachandran and other officials of MbPT, and since no larger public interest involved and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted publicity to the individuals and therefore information was denied u/s Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. At Point No. 4 of the RTI application the appellant sought regarding permissions granted to Shri Jayachandran regarding purchase of property relate to personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003656
CIC/SS/A/2012/003616 Decision:
5. As for as information on Point No. 1 of the RTI application is concerned, the Commission vide its Division Bench order dated 22.2.2010 in the matter of Shri P.P. Rajeev Vs. Cochin Port Trust in case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00707 held as follows:
"32. We, therefore, reiterate that there cannot be an omnibus order about the disclosure of all immovable assetsrelated information of employees of public authorities. The Government or the public authorities may frame rules about disclosure of this class of information held by them as filed by their employees, but till such time as these Rules are framed and, the condition of confidentiality in which such information is handed over to the public authority holds good, the request for their disclosure will have to be considered on a casebycase basis under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11(1) of the Act. Similarly it shall be open to any public authority or the Government to voluntarily undertake to disclose this variety of information, fully or in part."
6. Consistent with the aforementioned order of the Division Bench of the Commission, the case is remitted back to the CPIO/Senior Vigilance Officer/CPIO, MbPT on Point No. 1 of the RTI application, with the direction that he will consider this matter under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) and/or Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and then take a view as enjoined by either or both sections, which shall be communicated to the appellant in response to his query at Point No. 9 and 10 of the RTI application within four weeks of receipt of this order. On Point No. 3 and 4 the information sought by the appellant, the CPIO has no disclosure obligation under the provisions of Section 8(1) (h) and (j) of the RTI Act respectively. Therefore, the reply of the respondent on Point No., 3 and 4 of the RTI application is upheld.
4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003656CIC/SS/A/2012/003616 The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with above directions/observations.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Mohan K. Aswani, T.C.X - South -94, Gandhidhan (Kutch)-370201 (Gujarat) The Sr. Vigilance Officer & CPIO, Mumbai Port Trust, "Krupanidhi", 9, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.
The First Appellate Authority, Mumbai Port Trust, "Krupanidhi", 9, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001.