Central Information Commission
Rajesh Budhalal vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 7 November, 2022
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/SS/A/2013/000732
Rajesh Budhalal .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
The State Trading Corporation
of India Limited, Flat No 702,
Haridarshan Apartment,
Near Parimal Under bridge,
Paldi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380007 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
The instant hearing is being pursued in respect of a judgment of the Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
17113/2015 dated 01.08.2022 passed in the matter of the Appellant as under:
"At the outset, learned advocate Mr. J.A. Adeshra, on instructions,
has submitted that the petitioner would like to file an application under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") before
the appropriate authority and the same may be ordered to be vis decided
in accordance with law.
Learned advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, appearing for the respondent
no.3 has submitted that in fact the earlier application of the petitioner was
already rejected in the year 2013, however, if the petitioner wants to file
1
the same under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the respondent
no.1 may take appropriate decision in this regard.
Under the circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of as
withdrawn with a liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to file
appropriate application under Section 20 of the Act before the respondent
no.1. If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the
respondent no.1 in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of
hearing to all the respective parties. Notice is discharged."
Further, the context in which the above judgment was passed is the order of the
Commission dated 16.12.2013, text of which is as under:
ORDER
1. "The present order is being passed in continuation of the interim order dated 22.10.2013 heard on 14.10.2013. Both the parties were present for the hearing dated 14.10.2013. The appellant was present for the hearing. The respondent was represented by Shri. M.M Sharma, Smt Roma Nagrath (JGM/F), Shri Deepak Dixit (DGM/L), Shri Girish Shiham (Dir) and Shri. Mathur (Br. Manager/STC). Shri J.A Aderson, Advocate representing the third party is also present.
2. The following directions were issued in the interim order dated 22.10.2013:
"7. In view of the request made by the appellant as aforementioned, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the submissions dated 11.10.2013 made before the Commission to the appellant within five days of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the appellant, may, if he so desires file his counter submissions before the Commission within two weeks of receipt of CPIO's submissions."
3. The appeal was heard in relation to an application dated 16.8.2012 addressed to CPIO; State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. seeking information on (10) points. At point; (a) the. appellant sought certified copy of contract, if any, executed by STC With Issan Overseas Ltd., in respect of sale-purchase, contract dtd, 28.5.2003 executed by STC with a foreign buyer cluster plan Pte Ltd., Singapore, (b) certified copy of note prepared by the officers of STC in respect of Sale -- Purchase contract dtd 28.5.2003 executed ;by STC with a foreign buyer Cluster Plan Pte Ltd., Singapore etc. 2 The CPIO vide letter dated 11.9.2012, replied as under: "Please be informed that since various civil/arbitration and criminal proceedings are pending against "Rajesh Brokers and Issan Overseas" with STC from lower court to High Court to Arbitration to Supreme Court, the required information is disclosed, it will not only obstruct/impede. the process of pending investigations before above legal forums but also hamper the prosecution of offender and/or apprehensions. It is understood that all the documents sought under RT1 application such as sale-purchase contracts, purchase notes etc. are already available with information seeker, being duly signed by both the parties. However, in view of above, the matter/document/information, being sub judice or a matter pending with any of the enforcement authorities of the Government, the information is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (d) (h) and (j) of the RT1 Act."
The appellant filed a. first appeal dated 4.10.2012 which was disposed off vide order dated 14.11.2012 wherein the first appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4. The CPI0 filed written submissions: during the hearing which has also been recorded in the interim order dated 14.10.2013 is being reproduced as under:
• " The case of STC is that the arbitration case has been filed against Rajesh Brokers, the owner of which the appellant Shri Mehta in Arbitration case for recovery of Rs. 1,56; 86,081/(upto 31/10/2005) along with interest and costs. The said arbitration is. pending since 2006 before Sole Arbitrator Shri M.S.Parikh since inception. The appellant is seeking adjournments on the ground or other and delaying the proceedings. The STC is the GO1 undertaking: and has to recover the huge amount which is otherwise the public money from the appellant. It is needless 'to mention that appellant has also in his written submission before the FAA has also admitted that the information sought by him relates to the transactions between STC and firm, Rajesh Brokers with regard to which the above case is pending before Arbitration.
• That the appellant had submitted the cheques to the STC to discharge their financial liability towards STC from their account mentioned with their banker, Kalupur Commercial Bank, Ahmedabad. As the appellant firm failed to pay the amounts to STC, the cheques were presented to STCs Bankers for. realization. However, the said cheques were dishonored by SBI. informing, that the. appellant had issued the cheques from an account already attached by the Government authorities at the time of issuance of cheques. As the 3 appellant had dishonestly with the intention to cause wrongful loss to the Corporation and to make wrongful gain to himself issuing the cheques, the complaint has been filed by STC in the Court of MM, Ahmedabad under sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC, which is pending since 2012. • That the information in respect of documents mentioned in the RTI application filed by the appellant has been subject matter of the pending court cases including arbitration and the information sought is. available with them.
• The appellant has not approached the CIC with clean hands by suppressing the material facts only with the prime objection to delay in judicial proceedings to gain unfair disadvantage to the STC in prosecuting the pending proceedings against the appellant and his company. • Keeping -in view the above submission's the appellant is not entitled to, any relief from the Commission."
5. In compliance of the interim order dated 14.10.2013 the appellant has filed written submissions, part of which is, being reproduced as under:
• "I say that the information sought for by me is not exempted for disclosure Vs 8(1) (d), (h) & of the Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as RTI for short). That the information -sought for by me does not pertain to any third party, but it relates to (1) transactions between the STC of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as STC for short) and my firm Rajesh Brokers, where I am a partner and (2) transaction between STC and my company Issan Overseas Ltd., where I am a Director.
• I say that the application under RTI is made in pursuance to the order dtd. 4.8.2012 passed below application Exh. Z/11 by sole Arbitrator Mr. Justice.
M.S Parikh (retd) in arbitration proceedings -between STC V/s Rajesh Brokers and Issan Overseas Ltd.
• That whenever STC exports any goods at the our instance or on our behalf, then there is always a back to back contract executed between STC and our company Issan Overseas Ltd. That as the export contract dtd 28.5.2003 was executed directly by STC with a foreign buyer Cluster Plan Pte Ltd., Singapore there is no such back to back contract executed between STC and our company Issan Overseas. That there is no such back to back contract executed between STC and our, company Issan Overseas Ltd., STC has falsely stated before Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator that there is back to back; contract executed between STC and our Company Issan- overseas Ltd. Thus, in order 4 to bring on record the truth and, lor, effective adjudication of the Arbitration case, the required information is sought for under the RTI. • That on perusal of the record of the Arbitration proceedings, it can be safely concluded that, we are in no way responsible. for any delay, as alleged. At the cost of repetition, it is submitted that the documents sought for under. RTI goes to the root of the matter. That the said documents are in possession of STC and there is absolutely no justification on the part of STC to withhold the same. It is submitted that, the documents sought for under RTI are absolutely necessary for bringing out the truth and for effective adjudication of the Arbitration case. That the STC is trying to hide the truth, knowingly fully well that the documents sought for under RTI would establish that they have no case worth, the name-on merits. It is submitted that if the STC has the moral courage to face the truth, then there should not be the slightest hesitation on the part of STC to supply the document to us. • That the officers of STC always prepare note in respect of the contracts and payments made in pursuance to the said contracts and send it to STC, Delhi. That supplying certified copy of note prepared by the officers of STC in respect of the payments made in pursuance to contracts referred to in the arbitration proceedings can never be branded as confidential. It is submitted that the production of notings in respect of the subject matter of the present case is absolutely necessary to go to the root of the matter and for effective adjudication of the arbitration case. It is submitted that the notings demanded from STC is not in respect of transactions with third parties. Thus, there is no justification on the part of STC to withhold the said documents on the guise of internal departmental notings of Governments departments. It from the above facts it can be clearly seen that the submission of STC to the effect that information sought is available with us, is ex-facie false. • That it is respectfully submitted that the decision of CIC dated 17.9.2007 in
-R.K Muratha, Kutch Vs Central Bank of India, decision of CIC dated 27.7.2009 in the case of Shri Milap Choraria Vs CBDT, New Delhi, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 7.10.2013 in the matter between Thalappalam Ser. Co.op. Bank Ltd. and ors Ws State of Kerala & Ors, have no application, looking to crystal clear facts of the present
6. The CPIO has denied 'the information under section 8 (1) (d) (h) and (j). The plea of section 8 (1)(h) is based entirely on the ongoing civil/arbitration and criminal proceedings against "Rajesh Brokers and Issan Overseas" and that disclosure of the said information would impede the process of pending 5 investigations before the above legal forums and hamper the prosecution of offender.
In the matter of Jamia Millia Islamia Vs Sh. Ikramuddin the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (c) No. 5677/2011 vide order dated 22.11.2011 held as under:
"21. The information directed to be disclosed by the CIC in its impugned order is the copies of the Agreement/settlement arrived at between the petitioner and one Abdul Sattar pertaining to Gaffar Manzil Land. The petitioner University is a statutory body and a public authority. The act of entering into an agreement with any other person/entity by a public authority would be a public activity, and as it would involve giving or taking consideration, which would entail involvement of public funds, the agreement would also involve public interest. Every citizen is entitled to know on what terms the Agreement/settlement has been reached by the petitioner public authority with any other entity or individual. The petitioner cannot be permitted to keep the said information under wraps."
In view of the above quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the information sought the present appeal, the plea of section 8 (1) (j) does not stand at all. With regard to 8 (1) (d), the respondent has not been able to establish how the commercial confidence is involved. As far as section 8 (1) (h) the, only plea is ongoing legal proceedings. But in the present appeal, the respondent has not been able to establish how providing copies of agreements, correspondence would impede the said legal proceedings.
The Commission is of the view that the information sought in the RTI application is disclosable. Apart from the information sought at point (c), which may contain personal information, the information on all the points shall be provided to the appellant within two weeks from the receipt of the order."
Now, in furtherance of the averred High Court judgment, the Appellant sought to file a communication (in continuation or as an amendment to his earlier communication diarized as 148587/2022) with the Commission under the head "application under Section 20 of RTI Act" dated 20.10.2022 stating as under:
1. "That the present application u/s. 20 of Right to Information Act in pursuance to oral order dtd. 1.8.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 17113 of 2015. That a copy of 6 oral order dtd. 1.8.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 17113 of 2015 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A.
2. That on 16.12.2013 your Honour was pleased to pass a Final order in the proceedings of Second Appeal (Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000732) u/s.19
(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and allowed the Second Appeal filed by the complainant and ordered that except point (c) all other information be provided to the complainant. A copy of the Final order dtd. 16.12.2013 passed by your Honour in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000732 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B.
3. That the complainant had addressed letter dtd. 20.1.2014 to the Public Information Officer, State Trading Corporation, Ahmedabad inter-alia voicing grievance about non compliance of Final order dtd. 16.12.2013 passed by your Honour in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000732.
4. That the complainant had addressed letter dtd. 22.2.2014 to your Honour inter-alia voicing grievance about noncompliance of Final order dtd. 16.12.2013 passed by your Honour in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000732.
5. That the State Trading Corporation has flouted the order dtd. 16.12.2013 passed by your Honour in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000732 by not supplying information mentioned in the said order and in the above circumstances all responsible officers of State Trading Corporation are required to be sternly dealt with. That it would be absolutely just and proper to order / direct the State Trading Corporation to forthwith comply with the order dtd. 16.12.2013 passed by your Honour in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000732 and supply required information to the complainant in the interest of justice.
6. That in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complainant has filed the present proceedings before your Honour u/s. 20 of The Right to Information Act, 2005."
Therefore, in compliance with the averred Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's direction, the Appellant was offered an opportunity to be heard along with the CPIO, proceedings of which is as under:
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate JA Adeshra through video conference.7
Respondent: Suresh Kumar, Manager & CPIO present through video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the Commission vide its order dated 16.09.2016 has already considered the complaint/allegation of non-compliance of the order of 16.12.2013 and at para 2 therein it has been already put on record that:
"2. It is pertinent to mention here that incompliance of Hon. CIC's earlier order dated 16.12.2013, APIO, vide his response dated 10.01.2014, provided the required information, running into 28 pages, to the appellant."
The Advocate of the Appellant stated that he is here to agitate against the non- compliance of the Commission's order of 16.12.2013.
As the Commission enquired about his comments on the subsequent decision of a former coordinate bench wherein the same non-compliance allegation of the Appellant was taken up and decided on 16.09.2016, the Advocate of the Appellant appeared to be not paying attention to the remarks or questions of this bench but desired to argue that being a responsible lawyer himself he is aware of his client's cause of action and read out the contents at para 5 of the order of 16.12.2013.
Upon being apprised that no 'application' can lie before the Commission under Section 20 of the RTI Act, as only a Complaint under Section 18 or a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act provide for approaching the Commission, the Advocate of the Appellant argued that the said defects have been already removed and reiterated that 'an application has been filed under Section 20 of the RTI Act.' The Commission concluded the hearing after the Advocate of the Appellant read out the records desired by him.
Decision:
The Commission having heard the Advocate of the Appellant and upon perusing the facts on record observes that the subsequent decision of 16.09.2016 with respect to the non-compliance application of the Appellant held as under:
"At the outset, it is stated here that Hon. CIC vide its earlier order dated 16.12.2013, passed by Madam Sushma Singh Hon. Information Commissioner, in 8 file No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000732, disposed of then second appeal by directing the CPIO to provide the required information to then Appellant.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that incompliance of Hon. CIC's earlier order dated 16.12.2013, APIO, vide his response dated 10.01.2014, provided the required information, running into 28 pages, to the appellant.
3. Apart from above, it is to be seen here that despite of our due notice, Complainant failed to appear either in person or through someone, duly authorized by him before the Commission to press his case. However, the Commission feels that complainant must have appeared, in such situations, to press his complaint before the Commission, after all, it is his case to be pursued especifically but complainant is absent deliberately, despite of our due notice. Thus, it shows the intention of the complainant that he is not interested, at all, in pursuing his own case before the Commission.
4. In view of the above, the Commission feels that no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding in such cases. Thus, the Commission is of the considered view that it would be appropriate and even justified to dismiss the case Therefore, it is hereby dismissed.
This complaint is dismissed accordingly."
As a matter of fact, the CPIO had also relied on the averred decision during the hearing and despite repeated references made by the Commission to this effect, the Advocate of the Appellant did not tender any comments/arguments but continued harping on the contents of the order of 16.12.2013.
Having observed as above, the Commission is unable to appreciate the contentions of the Advocate of the Appellant and finds that the purported "application under Section 20 of the RTI Act" is not maintainable. Further, non- compliance being agitated upon by the Appellant has been already dealt with by the Commission vide order dated 16.09.2016.
No action/relief is thus warranted on the Appellant's application of 20.10.2022.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10