Central Information Commission
Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 16 October, 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/MOYAS/A/2023/127761
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGGRAWAL ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Hockey India, B1/E14, Ground
Floor, Mohan Co-operative
industrial Estate, Mathura
Road, New Delhi - 110044 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/10/2023
Date of Decision : 16/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/04/2023
CPIO replied on : 19/05/2023
First appeal filed on : 26/05/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 19/06/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/06/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2023 seeking the following information:1
"Please provide me complete and detailed information together with all related documents/file-notings/correspondence etc on under- mentioned aspects relating to Hockey India awards:
1. Complete information together with all related documents/file- notings/correspondence etc on instituting Hockey India awards mentioning also when these awards were instituted
2. Are these awards given annually mentioning if these awards still exist
3. Years when these awards were not given after their being instituted
4. Names of those (year-wise) these awards were given till date mentioning also details of venues year-wise where these awards were given in the respective the year
5. Names with designation or post of the Chief Guest year-wise invited for giving Hockey India awards from date of institution of awards till date
6. Copies of complete file-notings, correspondence and documents on selecting the venue for giving Hockey India awards from date of institution of awards till date
7. Head-wise detail year-wise on expenses made on functions to give Hockey India awards from institution of these awards till date specially about expenses made towards venues of the functions held separately for different years
8. Web-link providing above sought information
9. In case information is not on website, infomation on depsen to put these details on website of Hockey India
10. Any other related information
11. File-notings on movement of RTI application."2
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 19.05.2023 stating as under:
"1. The information is available on the Hockey India website at below link:
https://www.hockevindia.org/hall-of-fame/hockey-india-annual-awards.
2. Yes
3. In the years 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021 awards were not held
4. Hockey India 1 Annual Awards 2014 - Hotel The Lalit, New Delhi, 28 March 2015 Hockey India 2nd Annual Awards 2015 - Hotel the Lalit Ashok, Bangalore, 26 March 2016 Hockey India 3 Annual Awards 2019 - Hotel the Lalit, New Delhi, 08 March 2020
5. 2014 Sh. Sarbananda Sonowal. Hon'ble Minister of Youth Affairs & Sports, Govt. of India 2016-Hon'ble Chiel Minister of Karnataka 2019- Sh. Kiren Rajju, Hon'ble Minister of State, Independent Charge for Youth Affairs & Sports and Minister of State for Minority Affairs, Government of India hac ended. Eminent sports persons i.e. Padmasree, Olympians, 1975 World Cup winning team members were invited to give away the awards of different categories
6. There is no separate file on the venue selection. It is part of general organization of the event.
7. The information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as the information is of commercial confidence and also third-party information.
8.https://www.hockeyindia.org/staticassets/waf images/UploadFile/4d/f1/ 5c/d081022c-d55c-4b08-bd9d- 2576fbf4429.pdf 3 https://www.bockeyindia.org/static-assets/waf- images/UploadFile/55/84/f6/4a173cce-b21a-4bc5-b0be- 61290949463.pdf https://www.hockeyindia.org/static-assets/waf- images/UploadFile bl/16/61/11763cf5-751e-400e-9343- e1b5bacpd.
9. Hockey India has already placed in public domain the required information to be provided suo moto as declaration under RTI Act on its web site.
10. NIL
11. There is no such document which can be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.05.2023. FAA's order, dated 19.06.2023, concurred with the reply of the CPIO, hence no direction is required to be issued to the CPIO in this regard.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ranjit Gill, CPIO and Adv Rohan present in person.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the second appeal filed by him is only related to point nos. 6 and 7 of his RTI application. The Appellant contended that he has sought specific information on his RTI application on point nos. 6 and 7 but despite this fact the Respondent wrongly denied the same.
The Rep. of Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the written submissions, which are reproduced herein below:4
"5. Hockey India prides itself in upholding the highest standards of good governance and transparency. The annual accounts for each year are uploaded on the website. The policies and procedures governing the organization are publicly available, as are the details of all team owners of the Hockey India League. Hockey India is compliant with all its obligations under the RTI Act, and in fact provides all information it is required to disclose on its website, which is accessible to the general public. The remaining information, which is the subject matter of the present appeal pertain to Point No. 6 and 7 of the RTI Application, and are dealt with herein below: a. Point 6 and 7 seeks disclosure of complete file-notings, correspondence and documents on selecting the venue for giving Hockey India awards from date of institution of awards till date and head-wise detail year-wise on expenses made on functions to give Hockey India awards from institution of these awards till date specially about expenses made towards venues of the functions held separately for different years i. With regard to Point (6), it is submitted that there is no separate file on the venue selection. It is reiterated that the entire process is part of general organization of the event. ii. With regard to Point (7), it is submitted that clause Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act requires a determination to first determine whether the information sought is of commercial confidence and whether the same is held in a fiduciary capacity. iii. Further, insofar head-wise detailed year-wise expenses made on functions to give Hockey India awards is concerned, the same is a matter of commercial confidence which is exempt under Sections 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The information may amount to disclosure of commercial contracts entered into with third parties. This will harm their competitive position. The nature of information sought is omnibus in nature and no degree of specificity is attached to it. In fact, the Appellant's conduct amounts to a fishing and roving enquiry in the garb of obtaining information under the RTI Act. iv. In a case concerning rental agreements entered into by a public authority, it was held by this Hon'ble Commission that monthly rentals paid by one party and received by another are completely confidential information and the same is exempt from disclosure under is exempt under Sections 8(1)(d)& 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
This Hon'ble Commission in the case of i Mr. R.A Singh v CPIO & Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, CIC/BS/A/2012/000911/3666, has observed as under:
"The CPIO stated that the information (viz. copy of the lease agreement entered into with the land lord) is a confidential document relating to a third party and if disclosed would put the post office at a disadvantage in protecting its commercial and competitive interest and should, therefore, not be disclosed. He pointed out that the rentals are high and there is keen competition for space particularly for 5 strategically located premises and any disclosure of such information would be detrimental to their commercial interest. He further stated that the information relates to a third party and no bonafide public interest has been shown by the appellant to justify its disclosure and contended the information is exempt under Section 8(1)(d)&() of the RTI Act. The appellant is present for making his submissions/contesting the facts. Decision Notice The submissions of the CPIO are logical and cannot be faulted. Post offices are operating as commercial entities and there is keen competition for space and the disclosure of such contracts viz. lease agreements which have commercial bearing must be treated with utmost caution. Besides the information relates to a third party and no bonafide public interest has been cited by the appellant to justify its disclosure. The appellant has also not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and canvass his case/contest the CPIO's submissions. In the above circumstances we are unable to provide any relief."
v. This Hon'ble Commission in the case of D Shekhar vs Department Of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2018/167250, dated 16.07.2020 has observed as follows: "In light of the facts of the case and above cited decisions, the Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant pertains to the Medical Claim, Traveling allowance bill, Transfer allowance bill submitted by the staffs of Postal CIC/POSTS/A/2018/167250 Department during the year 2010 to 2018. Such information relates to personal information of third parties, which is of commercial confidence to the respondent public authority and is held by them in a fiduciary capacity. Further, a mere unsubstantiated allegation of corruption by the appellant cannot become the ground of larger public interest. Thus, the disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties and hence, is exempted under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (i) of the RTI Act." vi. The Appellant has been conducting a sustained campaign against the Respondent and the applications do not appear to be bona fide. In fact, there is absolutely no public interest governing the requests. Even in the present second appeal, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate any overriding public interest which would warrant disclosure of information, which is otherwise exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. The Appellant has not discharged his burden of demonstrating public interest and all the information sought is in pursuance of his private interests. vii. Without prejudice, it is well settled in law, that any information relating to business affairs, the disclosure which would harm the competitive position of an entity, is confidential information, and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Further, it has been settled in the case of Mr. K.V. Krishnan v. CPIO/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2015 SCC Online CIC 12643, that if the 6 nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can have an adverse affect on third parties. It is submitted that disclosure of information sought at point 7 of the RTI Application would adversely affect the competitive positions of third party commercial entities, sponsors, suppliers and agencies that are private entities. The disclosure of such information to the Appellant is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Acti viii. It is submitted that the disclosure of such information is warranted only if there is an over-riding public interest involved. Matters of public interest have been defined by this Hon'ble Commission in a catena of its decisions to mean those matters in which a class of the community has pecuniary interest or some interest by which its legal rights or liabilities are affected. It is submitted that no public interest has been demonstrated by the Appellant warranting the disclosure of such sensitive and confidential commercial information."
Decision:
The Commission observes at the outset that the relief in the instant matter is being restricted to point nos. 6 and 7 of the RTI Application by the Appellant.
It is observed that the Appellant had sought specific information on point nos. 6 and 7 of the RTI application viz. "6. Copies of complete file-notings, correspondence and documents on selecting the venue for giving Hockey India awards from date of institution of awards till date; 7. Head-wise detail year-wise on expenses made on functions to give Hockey India awards from institution of these awards till date specially about expenses made towards venues of the functions held separately for different years"
The Respondent contended during the hearing that there are no files related to selecting the venue for giving Hockey India awards as sought against point no. 6 of the RTI application but the Commission is of the considered opinion that there must be some documents/correspondence/extracts etc. with the Public Authority related to the said subject-matter. Merely stating that 'There is no separate file on the venue selection' is not a ground for denial of information under the RTI Act.
Further, w.r.t point no. 7 of the RTI application, the Commission is of the view that disclosure of information related to Head-wise detail year-wise on expenses 7 made on functions to give Hockey India awards would not harm the commercial competitive position of the Public Authority.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that RTI Act is meant to promote transparency and such type of information should be suo-moto disclosed by the public authority on their website.
Therefore, in light of the above observations, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide information to the Appellant on point nos. 6 and 7 of the RTI application for the period 2014, 2015 and 2019 as per the documents readily available in their records. The said reply and information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant after redacting the names and identifying particulars of other third party and cannot be divulged in view the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act for redacting the information related to the personal information of third parties, as the said provision states as under:
"...10. Severability.--
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information...."
The aforesaid direction should be complied by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 8 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9