Central Information Commission
Dr. C. Suresh vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 12 May, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/HUDCO/A/2021/628469
Dr. C. Suresh .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary-(RTI Section), Housing & Urban
Development Corporation Limited, HUDCO Bhawan,
Core-7-A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Regional Chief, Housing & Urban
Development Corporation Limited,
HUDCO Regional Office, 5-10-193,
1st Floor, HACA Bhawan, Opposite Assembly,
Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004 (Telangana).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.05.2021
CPIO replied on : 04.06.2021
First appeal filed on : 14.06.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 25.06.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 07.07.2021
Date of Hearing : 03.11.2022
Date of Decision : 03.11.2022
Date of Hearing (as per the 24.03.2023
Order of Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in WP(C)16500/2022)
Date of Decision 03.05.2023
Page 1 of 14
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 04.06.2021, as under:Page 2 of 14
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 14.06.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 25.06.2021 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from the Appellant as under :Page 3 of 14
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Absent.
The Appellant submitted that he is CMD and guarantor of the loan of the agency regarding which he has sought information. He submitted that the Respondent has erroneously invoked exemption clause and denied disclosure of information.
Decision:
Commission takes very strong exception of non-attendance of PIO during the hearing of Second Appeal. Commission hereby directs PIO to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary. PIO is further directed to send copy of supporting documents on which he relies upon in his submission.
PIO is directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.Page 4 of 14
Now, Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous and Respondent has not been able to justify the exemption invoked under Section 8 (1)(d), 8 (1)(e) and 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act. Commission notes that the Appellant has sought information which relates to his own agency thus, in the interest of justice, Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. In case relevant records are available at some other department, then PIO must procure the said documents and arrange them for said inspection.
Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant after the payment of the requisite fees as per RTI Act, 2005. However, no information should be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005 other than the exemption clauses invoked by the Respondent in their reply dated 04.06.2021.
Commission's directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/HUDCO/A/2021/628469
• Date of Proceedings: 24.03.2023
• Date of Order: 28.04.2023
The Commission while hearing the captioned appeal on 03.11.2022 had directed the CPIO to provide an opportunity of inspection of records to the Appellant with regards to the information sought in the instant RTI Application. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinafter:
".... Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous and Respondent has not been able to justify the exemption invoked under Section 8 (1)(d), 8 (1)(e) and 8 (1)(a) of the RTI Act. Commission notes that the Appellant has sought information which relates to his own agency thus, in the interest of justice, Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect relevant information as Page 5 of 14 sought in the instant RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing...."
Subsequently, the PIO challenged the aforementioned order of this Commission dated 03.11.2022 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C)16500 of 2022 vide order dated 01.12.2022 has permitted the Respondent to seek the hearing before this Commission. The relevant extract of High Court is as under:
Accordingly, considering the principle of natural justice the request of the Respondent has been acceded to, and fresh notice of hearing has been issued to both the parties by the Registry of this Commission.
• Written submission has been received from the appellant vide letter dated 'Nil' as under :Page 6 of 14
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 20.02.2023, as under :Page 7 of 14 Page 8 of 14 Page 9 of 14 Page 10 of 14
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: G. Hanumath Rao (Authorised Representative) on behalf of appellant Page 11 of 14 Respondent: 1.Mr. Ashok, Advocate
2.Mr. S.Gurudatta(Gm)(P) (HUDCO)
3. Mr. Hosy Vergene Gm(F) (HUDCO)
4. Mr. Srinivas Jam (L) (HUDCO)
5. Mr. Evelyne (AGM)(A) (HUDCO)
6. Mr. Ramesh Bhagat (HUDCO) Authorised representative on behalf of appellant has submitted that the Appellant has not received the information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He stated that the Appellant is the CMD and guarantor of the loan of the agency regarding which information has been sought in the instant RTI Application. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the information.
Upon the Commission instance, the CPIO has submitted the factual matrix of the case. He further submitted that above mentioned case has been decided ex- parte on 3.11.2022. They further submitted that the designated CPIO at that time had retired at that time. The change of CPIO was in process and no official was designated as CPIO at that time due to which the Respondent could not appear before this Commission on 03.11.2022.They further submitted that the appellant is seeking information which relates to the issues that are sub-judice and pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and partly are in dispute before the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad in Writ Petition no 32097 of 2015. They further submitted that the Appellant in his earlier RTI Application had sought similar information relating to same loan account and CIC vide its order dated 21.08.2015 had directed the PIO to disclose the information sought at point No. 1 and 2 of the aforementioned earlier RTI Application. However, the order of CIC dated 21.08.2015 for disclosure of information sought at point No. 1 and 2 has been stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad vide order dated 01.10.2015. They further submitted that vide letter dated 04.06.2021, the CPIO declined the information sought in the instant RTI Application on the ground that the information sought involves commercial confidence, disclosure of which could affect their competitive position in ongoing litigations in courts and the same has been held in fiduciary relationship and its disclosure would harm the economic interest of the HUDCO, thus information is exempted under section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. They further submitted that disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant will adversely affect the case pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They stated that disclosure of information sought in the instant RTI Application is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, as HUDCO is in litigation with the Appellant and disclosing the information which is relating to the issue that are directly in issue in the litigation would result in compromising the competitive position of HUDCO in the ongoing litigation. They further stated that they would abide by the order of the Commission.
Page 12 of 14Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and submission made by both the parties observes that the Appellant has sought information with respect to the loan granted by the HUDCO to M/s Soumya Medicare International vide agreement dated 06.09.1999 and the disputes relating thereto. Commission observes that as submitted by the Appellant he is the CMD and guarantor of the loan of the agency regarding which information has been sought in the instant RTI Application and he is entitled to get the information sought. Commission notes that based on the averments of the Appellant the Commission vide order dated 03.11.2022 had directed the PIO to provide an opportunity of inspection of records with regards to information sought in the instant RTI Application. Subsequently, the Respondent has challenged the order of Commission dated 03.11.2022 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi taking the plea that the PIO could not appear before the Commission on 03.11.2022 due to change in CPIO.
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 01.12.2022, permitted the Respondent to seek hearing before this Commission. Accordingly, considering the principle of natural justice fresh hearing notice has been issued to give equal opportunity of hearing to both the parties and their oral and written submission has been taken on record.
Commission observes that as submitted by the Respondent the matter relates back to the loan granted by HUDCO in the year 1999 to SMIL wherein recovery proceedings has been initiated by HUDCO against SMIL and there are various litigations pending before courts. Furthermore, Commission observes as submitted by the Respondent in a similar case wherein the same Appellant had sought similar information relating to same loan account and CIC vide its order dated 21.08.2015 had directed the PIO to disclose the information. However, the Hon'ble High court of Hyderabad vide order dated 01.10.2015 has stayed aforementioned order of this Commission dated 21.08.2015 considering the fact that since the SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the disclosure of information leading to filing of the SLP cannot be claimed under Right to information Act. The relevant extract of the order of Hon'ble High court of Hyderabad dated 01.10.2015 is as under:
"...Prima facie, in view of pendency of SLP before the Supreme Court, the information leading to filing of the said SLP cannot be claimed under the Right to Information Act..."
Commission observes that the aforementioned facts and order of Hon'ble High court of Hyderabad which has now been placed on record by the Respondent were not brought into the notice of this Commission earlier on 03.11.2022. Commission further observes that as submitted by the Respondent the parties are on the verge of settling their dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and disclosure of information sought in the instant RTI Application would adversely affect the ongoing litigations/settlement in court. In view of Page 13 of 14 foregoing, Commission is of the considered opinion that the matter involves information leading to filing of the SLP (C) NO 33819 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and disputes relating thereto, and in a similar case Hon'ble High court of Hyderabad has stayed the disclosure of similar information sought by the Appellant. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the Appellant for disclosure of information sought in his RTI Application at this stage. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 14 of 14