Central Information Commission
Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar vs National Small Industries Corporation ... on 31 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000148 dated 21.4.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar
Respondent - National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC)
Decision announced : 31.8.2009
Facts:
By an application of 23.10.08 addressed to Shri Ramdas M. Tekam, CPIO, NSIC, Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar of Bhupesh Nagar, Takli, Nagpur sought through Email the following information:
"A) Files of NSIC single points registration of units manufacturing items of chemical and allied, Plastics & Allied, Food & Allied products inspected by officers of MSME-Di (erstwhile SISI) Nagpur since 1994.
B) Files of M/s Century coolers Nagpur inspected by officers of MSME-DI Nagpur.
C) Files of units for which Shri P. P. Kowe Ex Director MSME-
D1 Nagpur submitted report as an inspecting officers to NSIC.
D) As per your letter No. NSIC/NGP/RTI/01/2006-07 dated 4.7.2006 excessive fees was asked by you for application and processing fees and applicant filed a complaint before CIC New Delhi and copy of the same was endorsed to you through email. Fees are revised, but applicant was got informed and so it is submitted provide necessary information asked under relevant application free of cost. E) During the period between 1996 to 2001 for units pertains to Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, and Koppal, Districts (jurisdiction of MSME-D1 Gulbarga) during the period between 1996 to 2003 for units pertains to Chattisgarh State (jurisdiction of MSME-D1 Raipur).
i. Name and address of the Unit.
ii. Items for which registration sought. (Fresh for
Additional or Renewal).
iii. Name and Designation of the officers from MSME-D1 inspected.
iv. Date of Inspection.
v. Whether inspection officers recommended or not in
his inspection report?
1
To this Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar received a response from Branch Manager, Sh. Tekam CPIO dated 20.11.08 as follows:
'1. Point No. 1 to 3 & 5 we are unable to provide the information of third party as well as inspection of the files as per the Right to information Act.
2. point No. 4 we have already replied the letter to you.
Hence your application is rejected.
Further, it has been noticed that while handing over the above reference letter you have misbehaved and used unparliamentarily language with our officials, so you are requested to kindly do not make such type of acts in future.' Upon this Shri Parmar by an Email of 3.2.09 submitted an appeal to Shri Hem Raj Singh, Zonal General Manager, West Zone, NSIC Mumbai with the following plea:
"That appellant received a letter dated 20.11.2008 (received on 23.11.2008) of respondent refusing information without providing any ground. That as per the provision of sec 7 (3) of RTI Act, 2005, information is to be provided within 30 days of receipt of application. Respondent failed to communicate within prescribed time limit.
That as per the provision of section 7 (8), CPIO shall provide reason of rejection, period within which appeal against rejection against rejection may be preferred and particular of appellate authority. Appellant collected information of FAA from website of NSIC. On the reply, it is clear that refusal of information is not a reasoned/ speaking reply.' Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar has supported this request with the following:
"It is to submit that appellant received letter of respondent dated 20.11.2008 on 23.10.2008 and met respondent. Respondent admitted that he was wrongly reported by staff members and he would issue another letter deleting last Para of letter dated 20.10.2008. But till date appellant did not receive any letter from respondent and so he files instant application and reserves his rights to file complaint under section 18 (1) of RTI Act to CIC New Delhi."2
Appellate Authority Shri Hem Raj Singh, in his order of 2.3.2009 dismissed the appeal of Shri Parmar in the following words:
"A Information sought by you under your application RTI-NSIC-
205-231008 dated 23.10.2008:-
1. The information sought for by you at point No. 1 of your application dated 23.10.2008 cannot be provided as the same is not clearly specified by you meting the requirement of section 2 (f) of RTI Act. Secondly, the information pertains to 3rd parties and cannot be provided for this reasons too.
2. The file of M/s Century Cooler, Nagpur inspected by Officer of MSEM-DI, Nagpur cannot be provided as the said file pertains to MSME-D1, Nagpur, another department. So far as the registration file of this unit available with BO Nagpur is concerned, the same cannot be provided as it is a third party confidential information protected by section 8 (1) (j).' Shri Parmar has then moved an appeal before us with the following prayer::
"Appeal was dismissed by misinterpretation of various rules of RTI Act.
Hence complaint under section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 to impose penalty under section 20 (1) & 20 (2) is submitted.' Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar has followed this with a request for hearing by videoconference on 17.6.09. Accordingly, the appeal was heard by videoconference on 31.8.2009. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Nagpur Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar Respondents at CIC Studio, Delhi Shri Mohit Choudhury, Authorized Representative Shri Ramdas M. Tekam, CPIO, NSIC NGP Shri A. K. Aggarwal, GM (HR) NSIC No representative of NSIC is present at NIC Studio, Mumbai. Respondent Shri Mohit Choudhury, however, submitted that he was authorized to represent 3 the Mumbai office. Shri Choudhury submitted a letter of 20.7.09 from CPIO Shri Ramdas Tekam addressed to appellant Shri Parmar with a copy endorsed to this Commission, sent in response to our appeal notice, which appellant Shri Parmar acknowledged having received. In this detailed response Shri Tekam has defended refusal of information as per the following chart:
S. No. Information sought by the Decision alongwith the reasons appellant A) Files of NSIC single The information sought deserves point's registration of rejected, as it falls under units manufacturing items exemption from disclosure u/s 8 of chemical and allied, (1) (d), 8 (1) (e), 8 (1) (h) and 8 Plastics & Allied, Food & (1) (j) of the Act, as such Allied products inspected information is: -
by officers of MSME-Di A. The information sought for (erstwhile SISI) Nagpur by you at point 1 of your since 1994. application dated 23.10.2008 cannot be provided as the same is not clearly specified by you, meeting the requirements of section 2
(f) of RTI Act.
Secondly, the information pertains to third parties cannot be provided for this reason.
B) Files of M/s Century The information sought deserves coolers Nagpur inspected rejected, as it falls under by officers of MSME-DI exemption from disclosure u/s 8 Nagpur. (1) (d), 8 (1) (e), 8 (1) (h) and 8 (1) (j) of the Act, as such information is: -
A. The file of M/s Century Cooler, Nagpur inspected by officers of MSME-DI, Nagpur another Department.
B. So far as the registration
file of this unit available
with BO Nagpur is
concerned, the same
cannot be provided is a
third party confidential
4
information protected by
section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.
C) Files of units for which The information sought deserves
Shri P. P. Kowe Ex rejected, as it falls under
Director MSME-D1 exemption from disclosure u/s 8
Nagpur submitted report (1) (d), 8 (1) (e), 8 (1) (h) and 8
as an inspecting officer to (1) (j) of the Act, as such
NSIC. information is: -
A. The file is the unit for
which Shri p. P. Kowe, Ex-
Director, MNME-DI
submitted report, also
cannot be provided due
the reasons indicted in
point (1) above i.e. non
specific information and
information pertaining to
third parties and another
Department.
D) As per your letter No. The information sought deserves
NSIC/NGP/RTI/01/2006- rejected, as it falls under
07 dated 4.7.2006 exemption from disclosure u/s 8
excessive fees was asked (1) (d), 8 (1) (e), 8 (1) (h) and 8
by you for application and (1) (j) of the Act, as such
processing fees and information is: -
applicant filed a complaint A. The information asked for
before CIC New Delhi in Para no. 4 had already
and copy of the same been provided to you by
was endorsed to you PIO vide point no. 2 of his
through email. Fees are reply dated 20.11.2008
revised, but applicant was and you have not stated in
got informed and so it is your appeal that you are
submitted provide not satisfied with the said
necessary information reply/ answer.
asked under relevant
application free of cost.
E) During the period The information sought deserves
between 1996 to 2001 for rejected, as it falls under
units pertains to exemption from disclosure u/s 8
Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, (1) (d), 8 (1) (e), 8 (1) (h) and 8
and Koppal, Districts (1) (j) of the Act, as such
(jurisdiction of MSME-D1 information is: -
Gulbarga) during the A. The information cannot be
period between 1996 to provided as the same is a
2003 for units pertains to general information.
Chattisgarh State B. Secondly it pertains to the
5
(jurisdiction of MSME-D1 jurisdiction of MSME-Di,
Raipur). Gulbarga & MSME-D1,
i. Name and address of Raipur. The information
the Unit. sought for should be
ii. Items for which specific as provided in the
registration sought. RTI Act.
(Fresh for Additional or
Renewal).
iii. Name and Designation
of the officers from
MSME-D1 inspected.
iv. Date of Inspection.
v. Whether inspection
officers recommended or
not in his inspection
report?
That in reply on merits it is submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant deserves to be dismissed as the information n sought by the appellant pertains to the third party and against the provision of RTI Act."
In the initial stage respondent Shri Mohit Choudhury submitted that the information sought pertained to MSME-T-1 Nagpur which is a separate public authority to the NSIC, although they work together. However, on closer examination it transpired that the details of information sought were those held by NSIC. On this basis Shri Choudhury sought to defend the refusal on the ground of exemption cited under various sub sections of sec. 8(1). In this context, appellant Shri Parmar submitted that information had even been refused u/s 8(1)(i) which refers to Cabinet papers and had no bearing on information that he has sought, upon which Shri Mohit Choudhury clarified that this was a typographical error and what was meant was Sec 8(1)(j). Shri Parmar also strongly objected to the use of what he termed derogatory language used in Para 3 of the letter of 20.7.09 of CPIO Shri Tekam in referring to appellant Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar:
"That he is pervasive litigant and deliberately in grab of seeking information. Appellant is harassing the officials of the Respondent.' DECISION NOTICE 6 As is obvious from the above, that both parties have been using application and response under RTI as a platform for settling scores with one another, rather than as an effort to seek and obtain information. The RTI Act empowers every citizen of India to access such information as is held by any public authority or under its control. It does not indeed provide license for invective. This would be worth noting by all parties in the present case. However in this case appellant Shri Tarun Chaturbhai Parmar seems to be taking umbrage at statements that are not necessarily objectionable.
On the substantive issue of information sought, we notice that information has been refused under various heads and under different sub sections of Sec. 8(1). However, while citing the sub sections it has nowhere been described as to the manner in which these sub-sections apply in the present case. In this context, reference to the ruling of the Delhi High Court in WP 3114/2007 - Bhagat Singh vs. C.I.C & Ors would be enlightening. In this case Hon'ble Ravinder Bhat, J. has held as follows with specific regard to the application of Sec. 8(1)(h). What is of special note however do we highlight the portion that will have application to any exemption sought u/s 8:
11. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, assured by Article 19, everyone the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers". In Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others (1995 (2) SCC 161) the Supreme Court remarked about this right in the following terms:
"The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an "aware" citizenry. Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizen to arrive at informed judgment on all issues touching them."7
This right to information, was explicitly held to be our fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India for the first time by Justice K.K. Mathew in the State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, (1975) (4) SCC 428. This view was followed by the Supreme Court on a number of decisions and after public demand, the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted and brought into force
12. The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By one fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official barriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in the possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by the Act. As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
13. Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right self. 1 Under Section 8,exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information, the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material, sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation 1 Highlighted by us as reference 8 to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms, there is some authority supporting this view (See Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta 2005(2) SCC201; B. R. Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma vs. Sesha Reddy 1977(3) SCC
99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restrictions on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted."
In this case the Court took serious notice of the two-year delay in releasing of information and the lack of adequate reasoning of the orders of PIO and appellate authority. S Ravinder Bhat J specifically notes, "As held in the preceding part of the judgment, without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be hampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices were issued to the assessee, the respondents could not have rejected the request for granting information."
In his response to our appeal notice, CPIO has no doubt sought to justify application of sub sec. (e) & (j) of Sec. 8(1) to this application. If certain information is held in trust, sub sec. (e) of sec. 8(1) can indeed be applied but there appears to be no grounds of invasion of privacy which is what merits exemption u/s 8(1)(j). For this reason the decision of Appellate Authority Shri Hem Raj Singh dated 2.3.09 is set aside. He will now re-examine the application and provide the information sought to appellant within fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice applying the principle of severability under sub sec. (1) of sec. 10, and thereby excluding only such information from disclosure, as can be justified for such exemption after application of mind. Should the supply of accruing information require a disproportionate diversion of resources of the NSIC or would be detrimental to the safety or the preservation of the record in question, CPIO may take recourse to sub sec. (9) of sec. 7, but it is clarified at this point that sec. 7(a) does not allow for refusal of information, only for providing the information in a form other than that in which it is sought. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no costs.
9Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 31.8.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 31.8.2009 10