Central Information Commission
Ramesh D. Sarasia vs S.V. National Institute Of Technology, ... on 19 March, 2024
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/SNITS/A/2022/157742
Ramesh D. Sarasia ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Technology, Surat
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 11.08.2022 FA : 10.10.2022 SA : 02.12.2022
CPIO : 14.09.2022 FAO : 05.11.2022 Hearing : 12.03.2024
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide duly signed and certified copies of engaged advocate for legal matter of SVNIT.
a) Agreement between advocate and SVNIT
b) Payment of voucher, receipt to paid, by SVNIT to various advocate.
c) Also provide panel list of advocate appointed by SVNIT.
d) Certified copies of payment receipt, paid to the advocate engaged by SVNIT.Page 1 of 5
(ii) Please provide certified copies of list of advocate engaged through panel of ministry of law and justice by SVNIT.
Duration for above i.e form January, 1st 2017 to till date.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) The details of empanelled advocates of SVNIT Surat are available in the Minutes 49 BoG Meeting dated 15-06-2019 which is available on the Institutes' website,
a) The details are not available in the office record.
b) The details of legal fees disclosing the names and fee charged by each lawyer law firm cannot be disclosed as it constitutes information of commercial confidence to the legal professionals involved, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. As per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Information sought is exempted from the disclosure. Further, the applicant has also not made out any case of larger public interest warranting its disclosure. Hence, the information sought can't be disclosed.
c) Refer reply to Point No. I mentioned above
d) Refer reply to Point No. 1(b) mentioned above
(ii) The details are not available in the office record.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.12.2022.
Page 2 of 55. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Pramod Mahajan, Registrar and Mr. K.K Singh , Dy. Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the respondent was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in the matter and argued that he did not agree that the information sought could be denied on such grounds as he had not sought any third-party information. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 14.09.2022. He further submitted that the information sought on point no. 1 (b) and (d) of the RTI application was related to legal fees of the advocate (third-party), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The written submission of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
"The applicant in his RTI Application dated 11.8.2022 has sought certified copies of engaged advocate of legal matters at SVNIT Surat. In Para 1(a) he sought copies of agreement and in Para 1(b) copies of vouchers, receipt to be paid to various advocates. As per Point 1(c), he has sought Panel list of Advocate and in Point No. 1(d) he sought certified copies of payment receipts paid to the advocates. In point no 2, the appellant has sought list of advocates through panel of Ministry of Law and Justice. (The details are enclosed as Appendix-I). In this connection, the following information/response is reproduced below:
1. The Institute has already provided the information sought at Point No. 1(a), (b), I(c), 1(d) & 2 vide RTI Reply dated 14/09/2022 and response of Appeal dated 5-
11-2022. The details are enclosed as Appendix-II.
Page 3 of 52. As per Point No. 1(b) and 1(d), it is reiterated that "the details of legal fees disclosing the names and fee charged by each lawyer/law firm cannot be disclosed as it constitutes information of commercial confidence of the legal professionals involved, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. As per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Information sought is exempted from the disclosure. Further, the applicant has not submitted information of larger public interest warranting its disclosure, hence, the information sought has not been provided.
3. It is informed that the annual accounts of the institute are audited by Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CA&G) and are placed before both houses of parliament hence question of hiding the information doesn't arise.
4. It is submitted that the appellant has been refrained from entering into the SVNIT Campus as per recommendations of Women Cell of the institute vide Letter no E/1384 dated 26/07/2017. The details are enclosed as Appendix-III."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 14.09.2022. The information sought pertained to the 3rd person who was entitled to preserve his privacy. The appellant in his RTI application as well as in the first appeal failed to bring out any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information which the respondent had denied. Hence, the submissions made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 14.03.2024
Page 4 of 5
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, RTI Cell,
Sardar Vallabhbhai National
Institute of Technology, Surat,
ICHCHHANATH, Surat - 395007
2. Ramesh D. Sarasia
Page 5 of 5