Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Ecgc Limited 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/ECGCL/A/2022/624589
Samir Sardana ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ECGC LTD., RTI CELL, 506, TOWN
CENTRE, 1, MAROL, ANDHERI
KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST,
MUMBAI-400059, MAHARASHTRA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/02/2023
Date of Decision : 27/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :28/01/2022
CPIO replied on :25/02/2022
First appeal filed on :05/03/2022
First Appellate Authority's :08/04/2022
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :29/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2022 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.02.2022 stating as under:1
Cancellations/Terminations (Aggregate The information/data sought in this information sought - no names sought) regard is not available. PIO to state the number and value of cancellations and terminations of the ECGC policy, made by ECGC, in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020 PIO to state the number of cancellations The information/data sought in this and terminations of the ECGC policy regard is not available made by ECGC,in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020,on account of fraud PIO to state the number of cancellations The information/data sought in this and terminations of the ECGC policy regard is not available made by ECGC,in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020,on account of misrepresentation and/or suppression of information Reductions (Aggregate information The information/data sought in this sought - no names sought) regard is not available PIO to state the number and value of reductions of the value of the ECGC policy,made by ECGC, in the last 5 years ending on FY 2020 Specifics of Fraud NIL PIO to state the number of cases of fraud detected by ECGC,w.r.t STCIL in the last 14 years • PIO to state the number of cases of NIL fraud detected by ECGC,w.r.t MSTC in the last 14 years • PIO to state the number of cases of NIL fraud detected by ECGC,w.r.t MMTC in the last 14 years MSTC - Inspections and Information The legal case involving MSTC is still PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the pending in Court of Law and disclosure files related to the insurance cover of information is exempted under given to MSTC w.r.t the Rs 600 crores Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. A jewelry export by MSTC - which was disclosure of relevant legal files will 2 later proved to be a fraudulent trade hamper the strategy of the Company to transaction in connivance with MSTC defend itself in Court of Law. management (in 2008/2009) • PIO to allow the applicant to inspect The legal case involving MSTC is still the LEGAL CASE files related to the pending in Court of Law and disclosure insurance CLAIM DISPUTE by MSTC w.r.t of information is exempted under the Rs 600 crores jewelry export by Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. A MSTC - which was setlled in Court disclosure of relevant legal files will hamper the strategy of the Company to defend itself in Court of Law • PIO to allow the applicant to inspect The information/data sought in this the written instructions given by MSTC regard is not available. to the Special public prosecutor Bharat Badami in the case of the litigations with MSTC • PIO to provide a copy of the insurance The information/data sought in this consulting agreement signed between regard is not available. MSTC and SK Sinha Zoom - Inspections and Information The legal case involving MSTC is still • PIO to allow the applicant to inspect pending in Court of Law and disclosure the files related to the insurance cover of information is exempted under given to Zoom w.r.t the Rs 2000 crores Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. A project export by Zoom - which was disclosure of relevant legal files will later proved to be a fraudulent hamper the strategy of the Company to transaction. defend itself in Court of Law. • PIO to allow the applicant to inspect The legal case involving MSTC is still the LEGAL CASE files related to the pending in Court of Law and disclosure insurance CLAIM DISPUTE by PNB/Zoom of information is exempted under w.r.t the Rs 2000 crores project export Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. A by Zoom - which was taken to Court disclosure of relevant legal files will hamper the strategy of the Company to defend itself in Court of Law.
Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. - No insurance claim given to M/s Inspections and Information diamond infrastructure Ltd. • PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the files related to the insurance cover given to Diamond Power Infra - which 3 was later proved to be a fraudulent transaction Claims Manual It is an internal guideline which cannot • PIO to allow the applicant to inspect be made available for inspection. the claims manual of ECGC Litigations (as at the end of FY 2021) 276 is the number of Pending litigations PIO to state the NUMBER of pending in India, wherein ECGC is a Party as a litigations in India,wherein the ECGC is a Petitioner/Complainant or respondent party as a petitioner/complainant or at the end of Financial Year 2021. respondent • PIO to state the pending litigations in Data is not maintained in the format as India wherein the ECGC is a party as a asked, however, the details of cases petitioner/ complainant or respondent, pending before different courts/forum and the litigants are private are as under: entities,with the litigations pending for a. Supreme Court: 4 more than 2 years,stating the case b. High Court: 103 number and the court of jurisdiction c. Civil Court: 34 d. Consumer Courts: 106 e. DRT: 22 f. Arbitration Tribunal: 2 g. Lok Adalat: 1 h. Labour Court: 2 i. Before insolvency professional: 2 • PIO to state the pending litigations in Data is not maintained in the format as India wherein the ECGC is a party as a asked, however, the details of cases petitioner/ complainant or respondent pending before different courts/forum and the litigants are PSUs or PSB or are as under:
state owned entities,stating the case a. Supreme Court: 4
number, names of litigants and the b. High Court: 103
court of jurisdiction c. Civil Court: 34
d. Consumer Courts: 106
e. DRT: 22
f. Arbitration Tribunal: 2
g. Lok Adalat: 1
h. Labour Court: 2
4
i. Before insolvency professional: 2
• PIO to state the pending litigations in NIL India wherein the ECGC is a party as a petitioner/ complainant or respondent and the litigants are PSUs or PSB or state owned entities,stating the case number, names of litigants and the court of jurisdiction PIO to state that any defamation case NIL was filed against MSTC in India or abroad in the last 5 years, alongwith the case number, names of litigants and the court of jurisdiction Winding up Petitions No such information is available. • PIO to state if PNB has filed a winding up petition against ECGC,along with the case reference number and tribunal or court,where it is pending • PIO to state if it has a copy of the No such information is available.
legal opinion from law firm AZB,which was taken by PNB,w.r.t the subject referred to above CVC and CVO NIL • PIO to state the number of cases of major and minor penalties imposed by CVC on ECGC,ir the last 10 years • PIO to state the names of the ECGC NIL staff w.r.t whom the major and minor penalties imposed by CVC on ECGC,in the last 10 years • PIO to state the number of cases NIL wherein the CVC did an investigation of the operations of ECGC, in the last 10 years • PIO to state the number of cases of 17 5 complaints received against ECGC staff by the ECGC CVO, in the last 3 years • PIO to sate the number of cases NIL wherein the ECGC CVO, found the ECGC staff guilty of corruption, in the last 3 years Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2022 stating inter alia as under:
"Ground of PIO - No.1 · PIO states "information is not available", w.r.t. several information requirements. The PIO does not state NIL or Not applicable. That means to the applicant. This is NOT a ground for rejection u/s 8 of the RTI Act. IRDA regulations and insurance contracts have specific clauses regard exemption events - which HAVE TO BE RECORDED by ECGC and would be subject to audit and other review. Ground of PIO - No.2 · PIO has made a false reply w.r.t. several information requirements, as NIL - when the opposite is true Ground of PIO - No.3 · PIO has made an illegal rejection u/s 8(1)(h), of information related to cases of fraud, where the matter is already in court and so, the investigation is over. Ground of PIO - No.4 · PIO has not applied Section 10 of the RTI Act to provide redacted information and allow inspection in cases, where information is denied."
FAA's order, dated 08.04.2022, provided a revised reply to all the points of the RTI Application.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"7.2. The NINE (9) Grounds of Appeal, are given below:
Ground of Appeal No.1 - The PIO HAS MADE A FALSE REPLY W.R.T CANCELLATIONS/T ERMINATIONS AND REDUCTIONS IN COVERS Ground of Appeal No.2 - The PIO HAS MADE REJECTIONS O/S THE AMBIT OF THE RTI ACT 6 Ground of Appeal No.3 - ILLEGAL REJECTION OF CLAIMS MANUAL Ground of Appeal No.4 - The PIO HAS MADE AN ILLEGAL REJECTION OF LITIGATION DATA Ground of Appeal No.5- The PIO HAS MADE AN ILLEGAL REJECTION U/S 8(1)(H) Ground of Appeal No.6- PIO HAS MADE A FALSE REPLY Ground of Appeal No.7- THE INFORMATION IS SOUGHT IN PUBLIC INTEREST Ground of Appeal No.8- PIO does not have the ken to execute a Rights based welfare enactment Ground of Appeal No.9- ECGC is not exempted from standards of oversight, transparency and accountability."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, AGM & CPIO along with R K Pandian, DGM & FAA present through video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and stated that there is nothing further to add in this regard.
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 invoked relevant exemption clauses of the RTI Act wherever applicable.
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:7
"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."
Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 8 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9