Central Information Commission
Dhananjay Raghunath Khane vs Shipping Corp. Of India Ltd. on 22 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/SCOTL/A/2022/138491
Dhananjay Raghunath Khane ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF
INDIA LIMITED, RTI CELL,
SHIPPING HOUSE, 245, MADAME
CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021,
MAHARASHTRA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/05/2023
Date of Decision : 18/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 14/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 19/05/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal dated : 04/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Particulars of Information Required: SCI Ships Safe manning and MLC Implementation etc. Subject Matter of Information: Details and Minutes of meetings of SCI Management regarding reduction of manning onboard the ships, MLC Matters, connected Circulars and other information sent to ships etc. Description of Information Required: As follows:
1. The Name, GRT, Year of Built of ships in service with SCI Ltd. from 1.1.2000 till date. (Please mention the date of commissioning of new Ships or decommissioning of old ships, as applicable.)
2. Please provide a list of Safe Manning plan and operational Manning plan of each ship the SCI implemented for Ratings, from the date 1.1.2000 till date.
3. The rate of Ex-gratia payment followed for each ship in lieu of short manning from 1.1.2000 till date, paid to the seafarers in Indian Rupees, category wise.
4. If there any difference in wages and Ex-gratia payment to Permanent seafarers and Contract seafarers with effect from 1.1.2000 till date. If yes, kindly give details.
5. The dates on which the meetings were held, in which the decision was taken to reduce the manning of ships and decision on curtail quantum of Ex-gratia being paid to the seafarers. If yes, Please give details
a) Kindly provide the minutes of each meeting as mentioned in Query No. 5
b) Kindly provide the List of attendees of each meeting as mentioned in Query No. 5
c) Kindly provide the quantum of Ex-gratia, in Indian Rupees as decided in the meetings mentioned in Query No. 5
6. Kindly provide an authentic copy of the wage agreement, signed by the representatives of seafarers and the shipowners, negotiated under the aegis of NMB separately for the employment of the Permanent/ Regular seafarers, employed by SCI Ltd for the period, 2000 to 2006, 2006 to 2010, 2010 to 2015, 2015 to 2019 and 2019-2023, as applicable, followed by SCI management.
7. Kindly provide an authentic copy of the wage agreement, signed by the representatives of seafarers and the shipowners, negotiated under the aegis of NMB separately for the employment of the Contract seafarers. employed by SCI Ltd 2 for the period, 2000 to 2006, 2006 to 2010, 2010 to 2015, 2015 to 2019 and 2019-
2023, followed by SCI management.
8. The annual Gross profit/ loss of SCI Ltd. accounted for every year with effect from 1.1.2000 till 31.12.2021.
9. Kindly provide a list of Permanent Ratings, and contract Ratings employed by SCI Ltd., separately, year wise, from 1.1.2000 till date.
10. Kindly provide information on the implementation of MLC 2006 onboard all the ships of the SCI Ltd. Please provide information about the official meetings with the MLC Agenda and copy of minutes of the meetings.
11. Kindly provide me with information on procedure followed while implementing the MLC 2006, like details of discussion, decisions, minutes of meeting, Copy of Circulars sent to ships etc.
12. Please provide copies of MLC Compliance Certificate of all the Ships of SCI Ltd."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 14.05.2022 stating as under:
"1. Please find the information attached in the PDF file.
2. Information sought includes commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property. Hence the same is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Ex-gratia is being paid as per NMB agreement.
4. There is no difference.
5. The information may be available with NMB.
6. Information is not available with SCI. May be availed from NMB.
7. The information may be available with NMB.
8. Please find the information attached in the PDF file.
9. Information sought is not available.
10. Implementation of MLC is as per flag state guidelines. Details of official meetings and MoM cannot be shared since information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(d).3
11. The procedure is being followed as per flag state guidelines.
12. Information sought includes trade-related sensitive data. Hence the same is exempt from disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of unsatisfactory response from the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: S. K. Tandon, CPIO present through video-conference.
The CPIO submitted that Appellant has sought very voluminous and diverse information pertaining to wages and ex-gratia payment to permanent and contract ratings, list of Safe Manning plan and operational Manning plan of each ship from 2000 onwards ; details of implementation of MLC 2006 onboard all the ships , and copies of MLC Compliance Certificate of all the Ships , ex gratia payments, etc. In response to which a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant earlier. Also, upon receipt of hearing a revised point wise reply was uploaded on the CIC's website, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below -
" 1.xxx Reply: The details were provided and the applicant was satisfied with the reply
2. xxx Reply: The respective latest safe manning plan and operational plan are placed onboard ships. Previous plans are discarded. Further they are trade related sensitive data. Hence, the same cannot be provided under section 8(1)(d).
3. xxx Reply: There is no rate of exgratia on the basis of which the exgratia is being paid.
Exgratia is being paid basis the NMB agreement (Notional Manning Clause). The 4 amount being paid to the different types of vessels are fixed as per the trade and operational activity and are confidential in nature. Hence, the same cannot be provided under section 8(1)(d).
4. xxx Reply: At SCI, there is no difference in wages and ex-gratia payment to permanent and contract ratings. If any difference identified by the available documents being claimed by the applicant, same will be investigated and response will be submitted.
5. xxx Reply: Since the information sought being quite old, corresponding records are not available. Informatively, decisions regarding reducing manning onboard ships and exgratia are as per the NMB Agreement (Notional Manning Clause).
6. xxx Reply: The wage agreement is being signed by INSA (shipowner's association) and the National Maritime Board (NMB) which has representatives of seafarer's unions. Therefore the authentic & certified copies of the agreements sought may be obtained from NMB or INSA. As a member of INSA, SCI only implements the wage agreement on the basis of the agreement booklet (controlled copy) provided by INSA.
7. xxx Reply: The wage agreement is being signed by INSA (shipowner's association) and the National Maritime Board (NMB) which has representatives of seafarer's unions. Therefore the authentic & certified copies of the agreements sought may be obtained by the applicant from NMB or INSA. As a member of INSA, SCI only implements the wage agreement on basis of the agreement booklet (controlled copy) provided by INSA. Informatively there is no difference of wages being paid to contracts and permanent ratings.
8. xxx Reply: SCI is a public limited listed company and the annual reports of SCI are available in the public domain (www.shipindia.com). However details were provided in pdf format by FAA as it was inadvertently missed in the reply sent by PIO.
9. xxx Reply: As mentioned in the order of the FAA, data sought is more than 22 years old, hence not all details are available. The available data is as follows:
5xxx
10. xxx Reply: MLC 2006 was implemented on SCI fleet vessel from 2013. MLC 2006 is a statutory requirement with guidelines from the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS), MLC 2006. The Information sought regarding details of official meeting, minutes and agenda with third parties are related sensitive data. Hence, the same cannot be provided under section 8(1)(d).
11. xxx Reply: MLC 2006 is a statutory requirement with guidelines from the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS), MLC 2006 is being implemented on SCI vessels as per flag state guidelines. Towards smooth and timely implementation of MLC 2006, SCI floated a tender to engage a consultant. After selection of the consultant as per the tender, MLC 2006 was implemented on fleet vessels. Information sought regarding details of official meeting with third parties, MoM, MLC Certificates of the vessel, etc. includes trade related sensitive data. Hence, the same cannot be provided under section 8(1)(d).
12. xxx Reply: The MLC Compliance Certificate is issued by the Flag State and is a mandatory requirement for trading vessels. The respective latest MLC Compliance Certificate are placed onboard ships. Previous issued certificates are discarded"
She also facilitated a detailed discussion on the subject matter while responding and explaining comprehensively each point .
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Application observes that the information sought by the Appellant is indeterminate and also appears to be voluminous in nature, collation and 6 compilation of which would entail diversion of manpower resources of the Public Authority and thus, cannot be provided in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from the relevant provisions of Section 7(9) of RTI Act which is reproduced below for ready reference -
"...7. Disposal of request.--
xxx (9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question..."
It also appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. xxxxx 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."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO earlier and now as it was as per the provisions of RTI Act. Thus, no additional relief can be granted in the instant matter.
7However, in pursuance of clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest reply dated free of cost with the Appellant within 2 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 ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8