Central Information Commission
Virendra Kumar Gupta vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 30 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MAGRI/A/2018/114211/01497
File no.: CIC/MAGRI/A/2018/114211
In the matter of:
Virendra Kumar Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Dairy Development Board
Head Office
Anand - 388 001, Gujarat
&
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Immunologicals Ltd., (IIL)
Road no. 44, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 04/01/2018 First appeal filed on : 01/01/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 17/01/2018 Second Appeal dated : 27/02/2018 Date of Hearing : 28/08/2019 Date of Decision : 28/08/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri A.Padmanabhan, OSD and CPIO, NDDB, present in person; Shri Giridhar, Senior Manager (Legal); present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Name of persons who faced domestic enquiry in Indian Immunologicals Ltd.1
2. Details of persons of HH - trade division who left Indian Immunologicals Ltd. during April 2014 to October 2017.
3. Details of persons who have been terminated by Indian Immunologicals Ltd. during April 2014 to October 2017.
4. Details of moveable, immovable and valuable properties purchased by Dr K Anand Kumar (MD, IIL) during April 2012 to August 2017.
5. At what cost Indian Immunologicals Ltd. purchased Pristine Biological (NZ) Ltd.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had sought information from NDDB and it should have been given after collecting it from the Indian Immunologicals Ltd. Shri Giridhar, Senior Manager (Legal) representing Respondent no. 2, Indian Immunologicals Ltd submitted at the outset that they are not a public authority as defined u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CPIO, NDDB Shri A.Padmanabhan reiterated the contents of the reply dated 04.01.2018.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the records, it is noted that the CPIO, NDDB denied the information stating that the information sought pertains to the functioning of Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad. As the information sought by him in the application does not pertain to the functioning of NDDB but relates to IIL, which is a separate legal entity, hence, they had forwarded the same to IIL for providing the information sought.
It is pertinent to mention here that the earlier bench of the Commission vide order dated 17.05.2017 in case no. CIC/SH/A/2016/001106/MP in the matter of Seema Aggarwal vs NDDB & IIL held as follows:
"4. The Manager (Legal), IIL stated that the company was not a "public authority" within the meaning of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO, NDDB stated that the IIL was one of the subsidiary company of NDDB and the NDDB had 100% share holding of the IIL.
5. The Commission observes that since the NDDB has 100% share holding in the IIL, the NDDB can access the information sought from the IIL. The Commission directs the CPIO, NDDB to access the information sought from the IIL u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act and provide a reply to the appellant within 20 days from the date of receipt of 2 File no.: CIC/MAGRI/A/2018/114211 this order, keeping in view the provisions of Sec 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act."
Following the above ratio the settled practice is that the NDDB should access the information sought from the IIL and give a reply. In so far as the information sought in concerned, the information sought in respect of points no. 1 to 4 of the RTI application is related to personal information of third parties and stands exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The representative of the IIL submitted that even the information sought in point no. 5 of the RTI application cannot be given as it would compromise the commercial confidence of their company. Decision:
In view of the above discussion, the CPIO NDDB is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant after accessing the same from the IIL u/s 2(j) of the RTI Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3