Central Information Commission
Amresh Chandra Mathur vs Directorate Of General Of Health ... on 10 April, 2019
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./ िशकायत सं या / Complaint No:-
CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/609161-BJ+
CIC/DTGHS/C/2018/609159-BJ +
CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/608125-BJ
Mr. Amresh Chandra Mathur
....अपीलकता/Appellant
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Asst. Drugs Controller (I)
Directorate General of Health Services
Office of the Drug Controller General (India)
FDA Bhawan, Opp. Mata Sundari College
Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.04.2019
Date of Decision : 09.04.2019
ORDER
RTI I & II File No(s). CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/609161-BJ and CIC/DTGHS/C/2018/609159-BJ Date of RTI application 16.10.2017 CPIO's response 20.11.2017 Date of the First Appeal 30.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 03.01.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant/Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding clinical trials in India of the drug Moxifloxacin hydrochloride ophthalmic solution 0.5%, which was sponsored by M/s. ALCON LABORATORES INC, certified copy of all documents submitted to DCGI / CDSCO by the sponsoring companies seeking permission to conduct clinical trials in India of the drug, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.11.2017 stated that the information sought was not readily available with them. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Page 1 of 10 FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.01.2018 while endorsing the CPIO's response, informed that a committee had been constituted on 27.12.2017 to trace the file at various archival locations and the committee had been asked to submit the information in 30 days. Accordingly, the status of the same would be updated to the Appellant/Complainant in due course of time.
RTI: III: CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/608125-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 18.10.2017 CPIO's response 20.11.2017 Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of Registration Certificate issued to M/s. ALCON LABORATORES INC, 6201, SOUTH FREEWAY, FORTWORTH, TEXAS, USA, for import of Moxifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5%, certified copy of all the information provided by the manufacturer or his authorized agent in India in compliance of condition, if any, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.11.2017 denied disclosure of information under Section 8 (1)
(d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant/ Complainant: Mr. Amresh Chandra Mathur along with Mr. Venkatesh Nayak; Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar, CPIO & DDC (I), DGHS, Mr. Abhishek Chawardol, DI, DGHS, Mr. S. Kulshrestha, ADC (I) and Mr. R. K. Singh, CDSCO;
The Appellant / Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications (CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/609161-BJ+ CIC/DTGHS/C/2018/609159-BJ) and stated that the complete and satisfactory information was not provided, till date. Explaining that a blanket exemption u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 was claimed by the Respondent, the Appellant/ Complainant submitted that in his RTI application, he essentially sought information relating to the clinical trials in India of the drug Moxifloxacin Hydrochloride Opthalmic Solution 0.5% sponsored by Alcon Ltd., and that the information sought was regulatory in nature and should have been disclosed since similar information regarding grant of approval, history of approvals, etc was disclosed by the FDA, USA. In support of his contention, the Appellant/ Complainant also referred to a comparative study of label/ insert changes in storage in respect of 5 ml pack of Alcon Vigamox. Explaining the background of the matter, the Appellant/ Complainant submitted that the Alcon Company was importing drug Moxifloxacin Ophthalmic Solution 0.5% (Brand Name: Alcon Vigamox), quantum of which should not be permitted to be more than 3 ml as per the standards of FDA, USA. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and submitted that subsequent to the order of the FAA, the Committee to trace the file at various archival location prepared its report on 27.12.2017.
Furthermore, the FAA of CDSCO vide letter dated 22.02.2018 provided the Appellant a copy of Page 2 of 10 Test License and Clinical Trial NOC but denied the remaining information u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e). On being queried by the Commission, if he was in receipt of the aforementioned reply, the Appellant replied in the affirmative but submitted that the alternative formulation data provided to him was incorrect and re-iterated that the exemption claimed u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 was not justified.
With respect to Complaint No CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/608125-BJ the Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was incorrectly and malafidely denied to him u/s 8(1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 without giving any reason/ explanation for claiming such exemption despite the fact that in his RTI application he had requested the PIO to provide the documents requested after severing the exempted information as per Section 10 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Explaining the background of the matter during the hearing, the Complainant submitted that for the purpose of issue of Registration Certificate, a condition was stipulated that the manufacturer or his authorized agent in India shall inform the licensing authority within 30 days in writing in the event of any change in the manufacturing process or in packaging, labeling, testing or documentation of any drug pertaining to the Registration Certificate. In case of any major change/ modification the manufacturer or his authorized agent in India shall obtain necessary approval within 30 days at the discretion of the licensing authority by submitting a separate application along with registration fee as specified under clause (ii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 24A. It was further stated that registration certificate was issued under the condition that during the pendency of registration, the applicant may be required to deposit inspection fees as stipulated under clause (5) of Rule 24-A and enable inspection of manufacturing site by the official authorized for this purpose. Non-compliance of this condition as and when directed could result in cancellation of the Registration Certificate. Thus, it was submitted that the information sought was regulatory in nature and should have been disclosed since similar information regarding grant of approval, history of approvals, etc was disclosed by the FDA, USA. In support of his contention, the Complainant also referred to a comparative study of label/ insert changes in storage in respect of 5 ml pack of Alcon Vigamox. He further submitted that information regarding official tours of Ministers and other officials should have been disclosed in accordance with the OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 03.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO and stated that consent of the Third Party was sought vide their letter dated 20.11.2017 who vide their letter dated 07.12.2017 strongly objected to the disclosure of the details. It was further stated that the details sought were vague and not specific seeking all information which could not be disclosed by them.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant (CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/609161-BJ+ CIC/DTGHS/C/2018/609159-BJ dated 27.03.2019 in both the matters wherein while explaining the background of the case, he relied upon the decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/YA/C/2015/900281 (Johnson and Johnson case) and CIC/AD/A/2011/000116 in which CDSCO was a party wherein it had been clearly held that Clinical trials document shall be provided after application of Section 10 of the RTI Act; the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2328 of 2015 wherein it was clearly pointed out that punishment less than what has been provided in the statute cannot be given; Supreme Court Order in the case of RBI Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry dated 16 December, 2015; and drug review documents of FDA, USA, etc. etc. It was mentioned that the PIO refused to provide the information, lock, stock and barrel after taking refuge u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 while intentionally overlooking the note in his RTI application regarding severing information u/s 10 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was Page 3 of 10 also stated that the document enclosed with the FAA's letter had no connection with the information requested and letter of the deemed PIO dated 22.02.2018 was after coming to know that the Complaint had been filed on 07.01.2018 taking into account the letter dated 03.01.2018. Hence, it was inter-alia prayed to the Commission to provide the requested information and to give speaking order about the conduct of CPIO in terms of provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act, for imposing or not imposing a penalty.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant (CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/608125-BJ) dated 27.03.2019 wherein while explaining the background of the case, he relied upon the decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/YA/C/2015/900281; the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2328 of 2015; Supreme Court Order in the case of RBI Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry dated 16 December, 2015, DOPT Circular F. No. 1/8 /2012- IR; inserts, labels, drug review documents of FDA, USA and documents supplied by CDSCO after adjudication of CIC File No. CIC/LS/C/2013/000085/SS and CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/602102, (Letter of Alcon India). It was mentioned that the PIO refused to provide the information, lock, stock and barrel after taking refuge u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 while intentionally overlooking the note in his RTI application regarding severing information u/s 10 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that information regarding official tours of Ministers and other officials should have been disclosed in accordance with the OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 03.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T. It was further apprehended that the CPIO was aware that there were changes in packaging and labeling of the drug pertaining to the drug's Registration Certificate without any formal application/ approval as per RC condition and imports were permitted without approval as per RC Condition hence information was denied u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Packaging, labeling, documentation give information written on them like dosage, how to use/ not to use, how to store (storage), quantity of drug in the package, etc to the consumer of drug and the consumer has the right to know and FDA, USA makes it public as and when changes are/ were permitted. Hence, it was inter-alia prayed to the Commission to give speaking order about the conduct of CPIO in terms of provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act, for imposing or not imposing a penalty.
The Commission was also in receipt of a synopsis for all CDSCO Cases from the Complainant during the hearing wherein it was stated that it was mandatory that every drug pack approved by CDSCO should contain CDSCO approved insert and label. Explaining the details of information typically contained in an insert and label, the Complainant submitted that the new drug can be approved by CDSCO only after clinical trial was successful and DCGI, CDSCO HQ was only authorized to permit import of drug which gets imported through various port offices of CDSCO. He further stated that the FDA, USA publishes all such information in public domain and that such details were mandatory in nature. It was submitted that he noticed that such information was not put in public domain by CDSCO and that the CPIOs stonewalled every RTI request by using various techniques including giving false information from day 1 regarding import of the drug. While referring to the decision of the Commission in CIC/LS/2013/000085/SS dated 13.01.2014, the Complainant submitted that even after the order of the Commission, the CPIO provided incomplete information on the ground that the file of 2005 containing information regarding import of drug for the first time in India was missing/ not traceable. A Complaint vide diary no. 108023 dated 07.02.2017 regarding successive CPIOs not providing the information on this ground was pending before the Commission. It was further alleged that the CDSCO had permitted import of both 3 ml and 5 ml packs since 2008 (2005-2008 information not provided Page 4 of 10 on the ground of missing file), the Complainant submitted that the FDA, USA continued to permit only 3 ml pack since the research of the drug. Suspecting that there was a likelihood of change in RC conditions during physical import, the Appellant referred to his RTI application dated 11.04.2014 and the action taken thereon as also the decisions of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2015/000319 and CIC/YA/C/2015/000110. It was submitted that on receipt of notice of hearing in CIC/YA/C/2015/000110, he got to know that Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2015/000319 was decided on 03.07.2015 dismissing the matter recording the absence of both the parties. The Complaint CIC/YA/C/2015/000110 was also dismissed quoting Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2015/000319 order dated 03.07.2015. Suspecting a foul play in both the orders mentioned above he inspected both CIC files on 22.09.2016 and found that his address in Notice of hearing was changed in CIC/SA/A/2015/000319 and in CIC/YA/C/2015/000110, the order was issued before completion of pleadings as per file notings. He took photocopies of the documents and submitted a detailed complaint for vigilance inquiry received by the Commission on 27.09.2016. The Vigilance Inquiry Complaint resulted in re-hearing of his case file CIC/SA/A/2015/000319 beginning on 25.10.2016 and in compliance with the order of the Commission, the CPIO, CDSCO vide letter dated 18.11.2016 gave information about the quantity of drug packs imported in India since 2005 but denied part of the information on the ground that the 2005 file was not traceable. It was stated that to his utter surprise the Importer Company did not import a single 3ml pack in spite of continuously taking Registration Certificate of 3 ml pack along with 5 ml pack and only if the information available in 2005 was disclosed will it be known as to what was permitted for import for the first time i.e., 2005 after the clinical trials of the drug in India. He also referred to the decision of the Commission in CIC/YA/C/2015/900281 (Johnson and Johnson case) and submitted that by the time CIC adjudicated the case a lot of patients suffered injury due to illegal imports. Thus, he concluded that the CDSCO stonewalled the information sought in 1st RTI application dated 20.04.2013 falsely on the ground that the information was with State Public Authority i.e., State Drug Controller, denied information on the ground that the 2005 file was missing even after order of the CIC to provide the information and did (did not) not publish the information in public domain like FDA, USA.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 03.04.2019 in CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/609161-BJ+ CIC/DTGHS/C/2018/609159-BJ, wherein while re- iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA it was stated that the Committee had submitted their report to the FAA vide File No. 28020/485/2017-DC. Subsequently, the FAA of CDSCO vide letter dated 22.02.2018 replied to the Appellant and provided a copy of Test License and Clinical Trial BOC. The remaining information was not provided u/s 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, it was stated that the Appellant was provided all the relevant requisite information/ documents in respect of his RTI Request and the CPIO acted reasonably and diligently with bonafide intent.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 03.04.2019 (Complaint No. CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/608125-BJ), wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO, it was stated that vide letter dated 20.11.2017, they had sought the consent of the Third Party u/s 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in response to which the Third Party i.e., M/s Alcon Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 07.12.2017 strongly objected to the disclosure of details. Furthermore, it was stated that the Complainant had filed 2nd Appeal directly with the Commission without exhausting the channel of 1st Appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Thus, it was stated that the CPIO acted reasonably and diligently with bonafide intent and did not have any intention to hide the information. The Respondent also Page 5 of 10 enclosed a copy of the letter dated 07.12.2017 sent by the Third Party wherein it was stated that the information sought was confidential to them and disclosure of information could harm their competitive position and that larger public interest did not warrant its disclosure. Explaining that the information was covered under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005, it was stated that it was in the nature of transactional level data and contained commercially sensitive information pertaining to the overseas manufacturer and Alcon India. Such information, if disclosed would jeopardize the competitive position of Alcon India. Moreover, as per para 2.45.1 of Chapter 2 (General Provisions Regarding Imports and Exports) of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, such transactional level data cannot be made publicly available and the DCGI was obliged and bound to protect the confidentiality of such data. Moreover, it was stated that the information should be treated as confidential since the inspection process and its modalities should be within the knowledge of the inspecting authority and subject of inspection else the integrity of the inspection process could be compromised. Thus, it was stated that the information sought cannot be disclosed u/s 8 (1) (d) and being transactional level data the same cannot be made publicly available to protect privacy and disclosure of the information would harm the competitive position of Alcon India.
The Commission at the outset observed that similar matters were already heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/SA/A/2015/000319-YA dated 31.07.2017, CIC/DTGHS/C/2017/602102 dated 18.07.2017, CIC/YA/C/2015/000110 dated 01.07.2016 and CIC/LS/C/2013/000085/SS dated 13.01.2014.
The Commission further referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."Page 6 of 10
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
It was also observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
Page 7 of 10"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
On perusal of the available records, the Commission also observed that in several queries raised in the RTI application, the Appellant/ Complainant did not seek any specific information but desired all information which was vague and ambiguous. In this context, the Commission referred to the following observations made by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of State Information Commission vs. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar, LPA No. 276/ 2012 in Writ Petition No. 3818/2010 (D) dated 30.07.2012 which is relevant to the present matter:
"It is apparent from a reading of what is stated above that instead of seeking information on some specific issues, the respondent sought general information on scores of matters. The application is vague and the application does not make it clear to the Information Officer as to what information is actually sought by the respondent from the Officer. It was literally impossible for the appellants, as pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to supply the entire information sought by the respondent to the Page 8 of 10 respondent within a period of 30 days. The documents ran into 3419 pages. We had asked the respondent while hearing of this letters patent appeal as to what action did the respondent take in pursuance of the information sought by the respondent after the information was supplied and it was replied by the respondent appearing in person that nothing was done on the basis of the information supplied by the appellants as there was some delay in supplying the information. It is really surprising that thousands of documents are being sought by the respondent from the authorities and none of the documents is admittedly brought into use. We are clearly of the view in the aforesaid backdrop that the application was filed with a mala fide intention and with a view to abuse the process of law.
In the aforesaid set of facts, we feel that there is no justification for imposing the costs of Rs.2,000/- on the appellant no.2. The principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Law does not compel a person to do that what is impossible. In the facts of the present case, we feel that it was impossible for the appellant no.2 to supply the information which ran into thousands of pages to the respondent within a period of 30 days, as those pages were not readily available with the respondent on the day the application was filed and the Officers were required to search and collect the information, which was required to be supplied to the applicant."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shyam Kunwar vs. CIC and Ors., W.P. (C) 5099/ 2016 dated 30.05.2016 had held as under:
"Upon perusal of the RTI application filed by the petitioner in which information of attendance of all teachers have been asked for between the years 1993 and 2001, this Court is of the opinion that the information asked for is stale and no element of public interest is involved. It seems to this Court that the petitioner's queries are at best a fishing and roving enquiry to challenge 'Mr.Arun Arya's meteoric rise from UDC to youngest ever Principal'"
However, the information which is held and available with the Public Authority in its regulatory capacity ought to be disclosed to the information seekers. In this context, the Commission referred to the following observation from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors., dated 16.12.2015, wherein interpreting section 2(f) and 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005, the following was held:
"62. The exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) applies to exceptional cases and only with regard to certain pieces of information, for which disclosure is unwarranted or undesirable. If information is available with a regulatory agency not in fiduciary relationship, there is no reason to withhold the disclosure of the same. However, where information is required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship. As in the instant case, the Financial institutions have an obligation to provide all the information to the RBI and such an information shared under an obligation/duty cannot be considered to come under the purview of being shared in fiduciary relationship. One of the main Page 9 of 10 characteristic of a Fiduciary relationship is "Trust and Confidence". Something that RBI and the Banks lack between them.
65. And in this case the RBI and the Banks have sidestepped the General public's demand to give the requisite information on the pretext of "Fiduciary relationship" and "Economic Interest". This attitude of the RBI will only attract more suspicion and disbelief in them. RBI as a regulatory authority should work to make the Banks accountable to their actions.
67. From reading of the above section it can be inferred that the Legislature's intent was to make available to the general public such information which had been obtained by the public authorities from the private body. Had it been the case where only information related to public authorities was to be provided, the Legislature would not have included the word "private body". As in this case, the RBI is liable to provide information regarding inspection report and other documents to the general public."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to suo motu disclose Regulatory Information redacting/ obliterating the information exempted u/s 8 (1)/9 of the RTI Act, 2005 for the benefit of public at large, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant/ Complainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal / Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 09.04.2019
Copy to:-
1. The Drugs Controller General of India, FDA Bhavan, ITO, Kotla Road, New Delhi -
110002 Page 10 of 10