Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Ecgc Limited on 11 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ECGCL/A/2022/624591
Samir Sardana ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ECGC LTD., RTI CELL, 506, TOWN
CENTRE, 1, MAROL, ANDHERI
KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST,
MUMBAI-400059, MAHARASHTRA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/02/2023
Date of Decision : 27/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :28/01/2022
CPIO replied on :25/02/2022
First appeal filed on :05/03/2022
First Appellate Authority's :08/04/2022
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :29/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2022 seeking the following information:1 2
Being dissatisfied with a reply provided by the CPIO on 25.02.2022 (copy not on record), the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2022 stating inter alia as under:3
"Ground of PIO - No.1 · PIO has not replied to some information requirements or made wrong directions for the same Ground of PIO - No.2 · PIO has made a false reply w.r.t. several information requirements Ground of PIO - No.3 · PIO has made an illegal rejection u/s 8(1)(d) and (e),w/o any basis or reasoning and in a senseless manner Ground of PIO - No.4 · PIO has not applied Section 10 of the RTI Act to provide redacted information and allow inspection in cases, where information is denied."
FAA's order, dated 08.04.2022 observed as under:4
Policies and Guarantees PIO to list the various types of guarantees and policy products,offered by ECGC,in FY 2020 PIO to provide the premium income accrued by ECGC,in FY 2020,from the various types of guarantees and policy products of ECGC PIO to provide the claims admitted by ECGC,in FY 2020,w.r.t. the various types of guarantees and policy products of ECGC Audit CAG Besides statutory and Audit is done on yearly basis by C&AG. internal audits,PIO to state the audits carried out w.r.t the ECGC operations,in the 7 years,uptp FY 2020,as under:
o Name of audit agency - CAG or others o Type of Audit -
Performance/Compliance/Spe cial/Forensic Audits etc 5 o Year of audit o Period of audit - Period for which the audit was done Claims rejected PIO to state the aggregate value and number of claims rejected by ECGC in the last 7 years,providing the aggregate value across all policies and types for each year PIO to state the types of claims rejected,for the Top 3 claims rejected (by value),in each of the last 5 years,stating the value of claim,type of policy or guarantee,sector of claim (gems/jwellery/projects etc.)and name of claimant 6 PIO to provide the names of any expert or auditor used by ECGC to examine,appraise or review the claims rejected by ECGC,in the last 5 years Claims - Banks Type 1 PIO to state the value of claims admitted by ECGc w.r.t the preshipment finance funded by banks, in the last 7 years,year by year PIO to state the value of The information is exempted under Sec. 8(1)(d). claims as above,with the names of the banks,for the Top 5 claims admitted by ECGC for each bank (for each of the last 5 years),along with the claim ratio for each such bank PIO to state the value of Report is not generated from system based on claims as above,with the commodity.
sector of the claims (gems/jwellery/projects etc.),for the Top 3 sectoral claims admitted by ECGC for each sector (for each of the last 5 years) 7 Type 2 Amount in Crore PIO to state the value of claims admitted by ECGc w.r.t the post shipment finance funded by banks, in the last 7 years, year by year PIO to state the value of The information is exempted under Sec. 8(1)(d). claims as above,with the names of the banks,for the Top 5 claims admitted by ECGC for each bank (for each of the last 5 years),along with the claim ratio for each such bank PIO to state the value of Report is not generated from system based on claims as above,with the commodity. sector of the claims (gems/jwellery/projects etc.),for the Top 3 sectoral claims admitted by ECGC for each sector (for each of the last 5 years) Non-Policy Holders Not applicable. PIO to state the value of claims admitted by ECGC,w.r.t importer default claims on exports made by exporters- wherein the exporters were non-polic holders 8 Foreign Buyer defaulters PIO to provide the names of the largest 5 importer defaults,w.r.t the exporters made by Indian exporters,for which ECGC had admitted the ECGC claims,in each of the last 5 years (with the value of the claim and the sector of the claim) PIO to provide the latest list of foreign buyers,who defaulted in paymemts,and for whom,ECGC has admitted claims to exporters,in India Frauds NIL PIO to provide the number and value of cases of frauds in the ECGC operations,in the last 7 years,as under :
o Year,Name of exporter,Name of importer,Type of policy/guarantee,Value of fraud Segement Profitability PIO to state the aggregate profits earned from its insurance offerings,for the pre-shipmemt credits by banks,in each of the last 7 years PIO to state the aggregate As above profits earned from its 9 insurance offerings,for the post-shipmemt credits by banks,in each of the last 7 years Recoveries Annexure enlcosed PIO to state the aggregate value of ECGC recoveries pending with various banks,as at the end of FY 2020,with the list of the banks and the amounts to be recovered therefrom PIO to state the ageing analyis of the ECGC recoveries,pending with various banks,as at the end of FY 2020,as under:
o More than 2 years but less than 3 years o More than 3 years but less than 4 years o More than 4 years but less than 4 years o More than 4 years but less than 5 years o More than 5 years Provisions PIO to provide the details of the provisions made for losses or impairememt or imsolvency or doubtful nature of its investments,in the last 7 years,as under :
o Year,Name of entity in which invested,Nature of investment (debt/equity),amount of provision 10 Limits PIO to provide a copy of the latest exposure norms set up by ECGC,for each sector,buyer,exporter,geogra phy and bank PIO to provide a copy of the Banks are not bound by ECGC's exposure norms. latest exposure norms set up by ECGC,to be followed by banks,in their Pre and Post shipment financing PIO to provide a copt of the latest guidlines by ECGC to banks w.r.t taking prior sanction from ECGC,before taking exposures under EPC facilities Bank Audit No Audit Review PIO to state if ECGC directed an audit or review,of the credit appraisal processes used by 11 banks,while sanctioning export credits,w.r.t.
buyer,exporter,sector and the export market o If Yes,the PIO to state the year of such an audit and the agency which did the said audit Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Rajesh Kumar, AGM & CPIO along with R K Pandian, DGM & FAA present through video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and stated that there is nothing further to add in this regard.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific and humungous and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authority to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIO to correctly apply their mind to decipher what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Yet, it is noteworthy that the CPIO & FAA have attempted to decipher the RTI Application with utmost diligence to provide the maximum permissible information and have invoked relevant exemption clauses of the RTI Act wherever applicable.
In the facts of the instant case, the Commission also relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:12
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Having observed as above, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 13 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 14