Central Information Commission
Omprakash Kashiram vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 21 January, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2020/117931
Mr. Omprakash Kashiram ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, PB
No. 11041, Mumbai-400020
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 06-01-2020 FA : 04-02-2020 SA : 02-07-2020
CPIO : 28-01-2020 FAO : 20-02-2020 Hearing : 04-01-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"1. Documents for payment to each country names shown in enclosed letter No.MRPURTll1377l2O19 dated 20.11.2019 may be provided duly attested by PIO with name and designation.
2. Documents of bill of landing from cargo ship or crude oil tanker ships from the each country mentioned in enclosed letter of MRPL may be provided.
3. Documents from the customs clearance for import of crude oil from each country mentioned in enclosed letter of MRPL may be provided.
4. Documents for delivery of crude oil by air tanker from the each countries mentioned in MRPL letter may be provided.
5. Documents for payments from the state bank of India to countries mentioned in enclosed letter of MRPL for import of crude oil may be provided".Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 27-01-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 04-02-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO order dated 05-03-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and dismissed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant remained absent despite notice. The respondent, Shri Ganesh Joshi, GM (RCD)/ CPIO, attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide their letter dated 28.01.2020, they have furnished a due reply to the appellant. He further submitted that the information as sought by the appellant is not available in the manner as sought by him and the information is held with the department in commercial confidence and hence cannot be furnished under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to import of crude oil from other countries and related issues. The Commission further observes that the information as sought by the appellant in his RTI application is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act clearly reads as:
'information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information'.
7. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the respondent during the hearing that the information sought by the appellant involves the information of commercial confidence and the same cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The information sought is of commercial confidence and is also held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity. In the context of non disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) Page 2 of 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was held as under:
14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
8. In view of the above, no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 04-01-2022 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, PB No. 11041, Mumbai-400020
2. Mr. Omprakash Kashiram Page 4 of 4