Central Information Commission
Suresh Chaudhari vs The State Trading Corporation Of India ... on 11 March, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/STCIL/A/2017/169684/00212
File no.: CIC/STCIL/A/2017/169684
In the matter of:
Suresh Chaudhary
... Appellant
VS
GM (Pers.)/Central Public Information Officer
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.,
Regd. Office: Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan,
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
&
JGM/ Central Public Information Officer
The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.,
Regd. Office: Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan,
Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 13/06/2017 CPIO replied on : 29/06/2017 First appeal filed on : 03/07/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 31/07/2017 Second Appeal dated : 27/09/2017 Date of Hearing : 07/03/2019 Date of Decision : 07/03/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present
Respondent: T. Kerketta, GM(P) & CPIO, The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., V. R. Vengatesan, DGM & CPIO, The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., 1 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought following information:
1. The amount due and recoverable from M/s Metro Machinery Traders and M/s Agro Private Limited against financial assistance given by the STC.
2. The date on which the amount shown as recoverable as per Sl. No 1 i.e. including the interest up to which date.
3. Whether this amount is appearing in STC accounts as recoverable or written off i.e. what is the status of recovery.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The CPIO reiterated the fact that the information asked for in points 4 to 7 of the RTI application cannot be provided as it is personal information of a third party and is exempted as per the provisions of section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The appellant raised objection regarding non supply of information from points 4 to 7 of the RTI application. He further submitted that larger public interest is involved in the case. To substantiate his claim, he submitted a copy of the Report no. CA 11 of 2008. The subject of the report was Non-recovery of Rs. 119.14 crore due to lapses in monitoring the execution of a contract. He further submitted that the STCIL received a proposal from M/s Metro Machinery Traders (M/s MMT) for financing the project pertaining to dismantling and disposal of the fertiliser plant of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (NLC) at a cost of Rs 149.80 crore. The Committee of Management approved the proposal and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with M/s MMT was signed on 29 April 2005. The MOU stipulated that M/s MMT would deposit an amount of Rs 25 crore as margin money besides providing personal guarantee of the partners and post dated cheques as security. All the material of the plant was also to be pledged with the Company. The Company released (April 2005) Rs 149.80 crore on behalf of M/s MMT to NLC. As per the MOU, 2 File no.: CIC/STCIL/A/2017/169684 M/s MMT was solely responsible for disposal of the scrapped plant i.e selecting the buyers and raising invoices. The Company was only to issue delivery orders to the parties nominated by M/s MMT against the receipt of full sale value of the material towards recovery of Rs 149.80 crore along with the interest and trade margin, upto March 2007, the Company had realised an amount of Rs 37.37 crore only and the value of the unlifted materials was assessed at Rs 1.81 crore as per the report of the surveyor appointed by the Company (June 2006).
In February 2006, Audit pointed out the slow progress of work by M/s MMT and unrealised amount of Rs 105.48 crore. Thereafter, the Company directed M/s MMT (14 March 2006) to deposit the balance amount due. Instead of making the payment, M/s MMT issued a legal notice (25 April 2006) to the Company that the entire material had been sold to the Company vide invoice dated 17 May 2005 for the total contract value and sought the return of the post dated cheques. The Company's efforts to realise its dues by depositing the post-dated cheques (26 April 2006) also did not materialise as the cheques were dishonoured.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought relates to disciplinary proceeding against third party which is personal information.
The appellant also submitted that due to this exoneration, the Department is suffering financial loss, public fund was siphoned off and by this, public interest is involved.
The CPIO contended that there are many other reasons for the company going down. However, the CPIO admitted that this is one of the reasons. The appellant submitted that there is wider ramification, as due to the losses of the company, the employees and their families are being deprived, as they are no longer getting medical benefits etc.. The appellant contested that the respondents are reluctant to disclose the information as the third party is holding the post of Chief General Manager in STCIL.
Observations:
Sec 2 (n) of the RTI Act reads as follows:3
"section 2 (n) of the RTI Act, 2005, 'third party' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a 'public authority'"
The Commission accepts the CPIO's submission that information sought in respect of points 4 to 7 of the RTI application relates to third party personal information. However, the averments of the appellant cannot be disregarded which materially proved that the loss suffered by the company had wider ramifications which lead to denial of medical benefits to the employees and their dependants. The information sought in point 4 of the RTI application is relating to the disciplinary proceedings for major penalty which were initiated against five officers including Shri NAN Jeyakumar, the then GM/BM, STC' Chennai and on all officers, major penalty was imposed. Whether the major penalty of all officers has been revoked or of only Shri NAN Jeyakumar. In point 5 the appellant asked how much period elapsed after imposing the major penalty, when Shri NAN Jeyakumar made a request to revoke the penalty/charges to the DA, Shri Khaleel Rahim the Ex. CMD. In point 6 the appellant asked what were the grounds for revocation of penalty; in point 7 of the RTI application, the appellant asked how much amount of arrears was given to MrNAN Jeyakumar, consequent upon revocation of charges/penalty. The Commission observed that the appellant had not sought the information for any personal interest but in the interest of the employees of the said company who were deprived of the medical benefits due to the losses incurred by the Company. Moroever, it is beyond doubt that the loss incurred by the company was due to the siphoning of huge money by certain officers. There is indeed a public interest involved which outweighs the personal right of the third party regarding whom the information is sought. Hence, the Commission is of the opinion that information sought in point 6 of the RTI application i.e grounds for revocation of penalty of the third party can be provided after obscuring any personal information u/s 10 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission holds that larger public interest is involved in the present case and directs the CPIO T. Kerketta, GM(P) to provide the grounds for revocation of penalty of the third party to the appellant within 15 days from the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.4
File no.: CIC/STCIL/A/2017/169684 The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5