Central Information Commission
R. K. Singhal vs Department Of Financial Services on 21 February, 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/DOFSR/A/2022/629084
R. K. Singhal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Dept. Of Financial Services
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 08.03.2022 FA : 04.04.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 31.03.2022 FAO : 05.05.2022 Hearing : 14.02.2024
Date of Decision: 20.02.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Copy of trust deed of Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF).
(ii) Copy of note sheet relating to approval of formation of Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF).
(iii) Copy of official note placed for approval regarding formation of Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF)."Page 1 of 5
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(d), (e)&(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2022. The FAA vide order dated 05.05.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
"3. In this connection, it is observed that under sec on 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act it is not obligatory for a public authority to disclose information relating to commercial confidence, etc. unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants such disclosure. Similarly, exemption from right to information held in a fiduciary relationship is covered under section 8(1)(e) and the exemption from private information is contained under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. From the above, it is seen that the information requested under the RTI application did contain information related to commercial confidence attracting section 8(1)(d), held in a fiduciary capacity and also involves personal information of a third party and attracts section 8(1) (e) and (j) as well, as such, it was not obligatory to disclose such confidential information unless larger public interest warrants its disclosure. Further, the demand of copy of the note sheets, etc. would fall within category of being counterproductive and misuse/abuse of the provisions of the RTI Act.
5. Against this background and as per the above stated provisions of the RTI Act, the undersigned finds no reason to take a different view to that already taken by CPIO vide letter of even number dated 31.3.2022 except to the extent that section 8(1)(f) be read as section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 2 of 55. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Jnanatosh Roy, US & CPIO along with S K Chauhan, Consultant and Munish Raghava, OSD attended the hearing in person.
6. The Respondent reiterated the denial of the information as mentioned in their reply of 31.03.2022 and submitted that the records of Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) may contain financial data, disclosure of which will affect the commercial confidence of third parties. It was also argued that the Appellant has not explained how he is related to the information sought for in the RTI Application or what is the public interest in such disclosure. Further, it was submitted that as such the information related to the formation of the SASF is contained in the Official Gazette notification which is already available in the public domain. Furthermore, upon a query from the Commission regarding the relevance of the exemptions invoked by the CPIO for denying information related to the basic formation of the Fund, the CPIO argued that it is their apprehension that if this information is provided to the Appellant, he will subsequently ask for more details and data, disclosure of which will not be feasible.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that while the FAA aptly pointed out the erroneous mention of Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act in the CPIO's reply, however, the endorsement of the exemptions of Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) and the introduction of Section 8(1)(j) by the FAA was neither justified nor warranted. The reasons tendered by the CPIO during the hearing for invoking the exemptions appeared to be rather labored and lacked substance. Moreover, the Commission is baffled to note that the CPIO was unaware of the fact that under the RTI Act, the Appellant is not required to mention any reasons for seeking information or invariably establish larger public interest for justifying each request for information. Similarly, apprehending that a RTI Applicant may file more RTI Applications asking for further information is no reason to deny an existing request under the garb of all possible exemption clauses of the RTI Act.
8. A bare perusal of the RTI queries suggest that the Appellant has merely sought for records related to the approval given for formation of the averred Fund and their Trust Page 3 of 5 Deed, both of which are of a generic nature and does not appear to have a bearing on any matter of commercial confidence, invasion of privacy or vitiate a fiduciary relationship. In other words, the CPIO & FAA have failed to justify how any of the exemptions of Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) is squarely applicable in the matter. Further, it is pertinent to note that the CPIO during the hearing has admitted that most of the approval related to information is contained in the Gazette Notification, which is a public document and therefore it was not appropriate for the CPIO to have squarely denied the information sought for in the instant RTI Application. However as gathered from the public domain - 'Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) was constituted by the Govt. of India pursuant to a provision in the Union Budget 2004-05, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Trust for acquiring stressed and non-performing assets of erstwhile Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI).' it will not be out of place to observe that the SPV being specific to acquiring the NPAs of IDBI, the approval records of the SPV and the Trust Deed may entail or not entail data related to specific NPA accounts, about which no clarity was lent by the CPIO during the hearing.
9. Having observed as above, while rejecting the square denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide the available information with the liberty to redact in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act only such portions of the record that identify & disclose details of any specific NPA account, or disclose the financial statement of IDBI or disclose the names and identifying particulars of the officials/third parties processing the approval of the formation of the Fund, etc. The said information as directed shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO, free of cost, within 30 days of the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Page 4 of 5Copy 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: 20.02.2024
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
M/o. Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
US & CPIO, (BOA-II),
Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
2. R. K. Singhal
Page 5 of 5