Central Information Commission
Kirti Azad vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 28 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
Second Appeal No.: CIC/KY/A/2016/001025
Shri Kirti Azad Appellant
Versus
CPIO, M/o Youth Affairs & Sports Respondent
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 13.09.2015, CPIO replied on 09.10.2015, FAO on 13.11.2015, Second
appeal filed on 16.06.2016, Hearing on 28.08.2018;
Proceedings on 28.08.2018: Appellant present along with his representatives Mr. Aditya Kumar
Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. Ajit Kumar Pathak, Advocate and Mr. Sameer Bahadur at CIC, Public
Authority represented by Ms.ShyelTrehan, Advocate and Ms. Sonali Malik, Advocate at CIC;
Date of Decision - 28.08.2018: Directions issued and posted on 12.09.2018.
INTERIM ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant filed RTI application on 13.09.2015 seeking following information:
1. Please provide a copy of Hockey India League (HIL) certificate of registration, with details whether it is registered under Society Act or Companies Act;
2. Please provide details of sponsorship amount received by Hockey India League in the last 2 years.
3. Amount of Commission paid for getting sponsorships during the past three years along with names, addresses of the persons / agencies who were paid the Commission.
4. Please provide details of total expenditure incurred by Hockey India & Hockey India League in the last 2 years.
5. Expenditure incurred on consultancy and legal expenses in the last two years with name of each consultants and lawyers engaged by Hockey India and Hockey India League.
6. Expenditure incurred on TA/DAof board members in the last 2 years with name of members and expenditure separately.
7. Please provide names of permanent/life members of Hockey India and Hockey League.
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 1
2. The CPIO on 09.10.2015 provided the following information:
1. The Hockey India League is organized under the aegis of the Hockey India as such is not a separate body per se. The details about HIL are available on the website of Hockey India at the following link: http://league.hockeyindia.org
2. The asked for information is already in public domain as voluntary disclosure and may be seen from the website of the Hockey India (annual accounts) at http://hockeyindia.org.
3. All the information to be provided under RTI Act has already been placed in public domain both at the website of Hockey India and hockey India League (http://hockeyindia.org and http://league.hockeyindia.org). It may be noted that the holding of the events has commercial & trade angle and also involves third parties who have competitive positions. Kind attention is invited to Clause 8(d) of the RTI Act which exempts from disclosures of which are of commercial trade secret or intellectual property and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party. I am as a CPIO satisfied that the information asked is of commercial confidence, trade secret of intellectual property and disclosures of which would harm the competitive position of the third party - the sponsors and organizers of the event. I am also satisfied that disclosure of such information will also not serve any public interest.
4. The asked for information is already in public domain as voluntary disclosure and may be seen from the website of the Hockey India (annual accounts) at http://hockeyindia.org.
5. The details of expenditure incurred on consultancy and legal expenses in the last 2 years has already been placed in the public domain by posting the annual accounts/annual reports on the website of the Federation as stated above. The further information asked for is of commercial confidence and trade secret, as such is exempted from disclosure. Further, the information also involves third parties.
6. The details of expenditure incurred on TA/DA in the last 2 years has already been placed in the public domain by posting the annual accounts/annual reports on the website of the Federation as stated above. The further information asked for is of commercial confidence and trade secret, as such is exempted from disclosure. Further, the information also involves third parties.
However, we are still providing below details in relation TA/DA, travelling expenses and accommodation expenses on the hockey India Board Members. In the year 2013-2014 Hockey India expenses towards TA/DA, travelling and accommodation were incurred on the following E.B. Members only and the total amount was Rs. 27,23,919.00/-*. In the year 2014-2015 Hockey India expenses towards TA.DA, travelling and accommodation were incurred on the following E.B. Members only and the total amount was Rs. 44,00,006.00/-.
7. Life Members:
Mrs.Vidya Stokes Dr. NarinderDhruvBatra Mr. Rajeev Mehta CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 2
3. Claiming dissatisfaction, the appellant filed first appeal on 16.10.2015, stating as under:
"Kindly refer the insufficient and misleading given to me by your CPIO, ShRanjit Gill. As advised by him, I have gone to your two websites and am still to find my answers:
1. Refer my question no. 2 wherein I had specifically asked about the amount of sponsorship money that HI and HIL have got in the last two years. By directing me to your sites, I have only learn that Hero Motocorp, Bharti Airtel and Yes Bank are your sponsors. Are you sure that only these three are your sponsors? Is there any other corporation/company, whether a Public Sector company or in the private sector which has paid you sponsorship money, or is contracted to pay you in the coming years? Please specify the names of all such companies, and how much each of them has paid you in the last two years and has contracted to pay you in the next two years - year wise?
2. To point no. 3, the CPIO has conveniently cited issues such as Commercial confidence, Intellectual Property or trade secret which is seemingly the reason for not disclosing such information. I fail to understand how details of commercial sponsorship cannot be disclosed and how Commercial confidence, Intellectual property or trade secret will be adversely affected by such a disclosure. In fact, in the interest of transparency, such information should be made public, particularly when crores of sponsorship are being collected, and such money is being spent on running a national sport. Certainly, such a disclosure cannot harm the competitive position of any third party, who is in the business of making an existence out of their business.
3. To my point no. 5, the CPIO has again avoided a direct answer. Hockey India is conducting a national sport and it is absolutely imperative for it to be open and transparent about payments that it makes to consultants of all hues, auditors - Internal and statutory, legal consultants, tax consultant, lawyers etc. My questions remains - How much and to whom, have been paid by Hockey India/HIL during the last two years? I am sure that you would be required to give a utilization certificate to your sponsors for the various amounts that you would have taken from them.
Please note that all my questions serve public interest and are strictly under the four corners of RTI Act, 2005.
4. The First Appellate Authority vide his response dated 13.11.2015, provided the following information:
"I have, as Appellate Authority of Hockey India, received the First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. I have gone through your RTI application dated 13.09.2015, which was received in the office of Hockey India on 16.09.2015. I have also reviewed the response you received dated 9.10.2015.
On review of the RTI application and reply given by CPIO as referred to above, information pursuant to 1, 4, 6 and 6 of your RTI application have been provided to CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 3 you to your satisfaction. It appears that the scope of your appeal therefore is with regard to 2, 3 and 5. It appears that you are not satisfied with the information provided to you under point 2 of your application. Further, it appears that you seek reconsideration of the decision under point 3 and point 5 of your application, whereby disclosure of the information was denied by the CPIO.
Text of RTI Sl No. of Issues/information asked Information provided application Appeal under the first appeal and/or reply to the issues raised in the first appeal 1 2 3 4
2. Please 1 Refer my question no. 2 Sir I have gone through provide wherein I had specifically the Information sought details of asked about the amount under RTI application and sponsorship of sponsorship money reply provided by CPIO. amount that HI and HIL have got From the First appeal it received by in the last two years. By appears that you have Hockey directing me to your gone through the Web site India League sites, I have only learn and audited accounts in the last 2 that Hero Motocorp, posted thereon and notes years. Bharti Airtel and Yes the names of sponsors. As Bank are your sponsors. such I am of the opinion Are you sure that only that CPIO has rightly these three are your provided you the sponsors? Is there any information asked for by other drawing your attention to corporation/company, the web site and annual whether a Public Sector audited accounts posted company or in the private thereon which contains sector which has paid you details of sponsorship sponsorship money, or is amount received by contracted to pay you in Hockey India and Hockey the coming years? Please India League in the last 2 specify the names of all years.
such companies, and how
much each of them has It is noted that in the first
paid you in the last two appeal under this question,
years and has contracted you have asked for new
to pay you in the next information which were not
two years - year wise? in the RTI application
dated 13.09.2015 as such
as Appellate Authority,
under RTI Act, I am not
mandated to supply the
information which were not
asked in the RTI
application.
3. Amount 2 To point no. 3, the CPIO It is noted form the RTI
of has conveniently cited reply of CPIO dated
Commission issues such as 09.10.2015 CPIO has
paid for Commercial confidence, drawn you kind attention
getting Intellectual Property or to the web sites of Hockey
sponsorships trade secret which is Inia indicating that all the
during the seemingly the reason for information to be provided
past three not disclosing such under the RTI Act has
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 4
years along information. I fail to already been placed in
with names, understand how details of public domain.
addresses of commercial sponsorship
the persons cannot be disclosed and The CPIO has also drawn
/ agencies how Commercial your attention to Clause
who were confidence, Intellectual 8(d) of the RTI Act;
paid the property or trade secret information asked for is of
Commission. will be adversely affected commercial confidence,
by such a disclosure. In trade secret or intellectual
fact, in the interest of property and disclosure of
transparency, such which would harm the
information should be competitive position of the
made public, particularly third part - the sponsors
when crores of and organizers of the
sponsorship are being Event; and CPIO is of the
collected, and such opinion that disclosure will
money is being spent on not serve any public
running a national sport. interest.
Certainly, such a
disclosure cannot harm After examining the
the competitive position material on record and
of any third party, who is your RTI Application, reply
in the business of making given by CPIO and your
an existence out of their first appeal I am of the
business. considered view that CPIO
has properly invoked
Clause 8(d) of the RTI Act
which exempts from
disclosures of the
information which are of
commercial, trade secrets
or intellectual property and
disclosure of which would
harm the competitive
position of the third party.
I am also of the view that
disclosure of such
information will affect the
sponsors and strategies
being drawn in the
competitive sports world
which may also affect the
future preparation of the
Indian players for various
international events
including Olympic Game. I
also agree with CPIO that
disclosure will not serve
any public interest.
5. 3 To my point no. 5, the You sought information
Expenditure CPIO has again avoided a with regard the legal
incurred on direct answer. Hockey expenses of Hockey India
consultancy India is conducting a over the past 2 years. I
and legal national sport and it is find that the CPIO has
expenses in absolutely imperative for already directed your
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 5
the last two it to be open and attention to the website of
years with transparent about Hockey India, wherein the
name of payments that it makes annual accounts are
each to consultants of all hues, published, and the overall
consultants auditors - Internal and legal expenses for each
and lawyers statutory, legal year are already disclosed.
engaged by consultants, tax I agree with the CPIO that
Hockey consultant, lawyers etc. the details of legal fees
India and My questions remains - disclosing the names and
Hockey How much and to whom, fee charged by each
India have been paid by lawyer/law firm cannot be
League. Hockey India/HIL during disclosed as it constitutes
the last two years? I am information of commercial
sure that you would be confidence to the legal
required to give a professionals involved, and
utilization certificate to also to Hockey
your sponsors for the India/Hockey India
various amounts that you League. The CPIO has
would have taken from denied disclosure of this
them. information as being of
commercial confidence,
the disclosure of which
would harm the
competitive position of a
third party. I agree with
the decision of the CPIO in
this regard, and hold that
the information is
exempted from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(d).
I also agree with CPIO that
disclosure will not serve
any public interest.
5. The appellant on 01.01.2016 wrote a letter to Cdr. R.K. Srivastava, Appellate Authority titled "Inadequate and misleading answer to my RTI dt 13/09/15", which categorically explains:
"Please refer my letter to you, as an Appellate Authority in Hockey India. Please note that I am still to receive a reply from you despite the passage of 2 months. I shall reiterate what I had sought your help on. After receiving an insufficient and misleading reply from your CPIO. Sh. Ranjit Gill.
As advised by him, I have gone to your two websites and am still to find my answers:
1. Refer my question no. 2 wherein I had specifically asked about the amount of sponsorship money that HI and HIL have got in the last two years. By directing me to your sites. I have only learnt that Hero Motocorp, Bharti Airtel and Yes Bank are your sponsors. Are you sure that only these three are your sponsors? Is there any other corporation/company, whether a Public Sector company or in the CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 6 private sector which has paid you sponsorship money, or is contracted to pay you in the coming years? Please specify the names of all such companies and how much each of them has paid you in the last two years and has contracted to pay you in the next two years- year wise?
2. To point no. 3, the CPIO has conveniently cited issues such as Commercial confidence, Intellectual Property or trade secret which is seemingly the reason for not disclosing such information. I fail to understand how details of commercial sponsorships cannot be disclosed and how Commercial confidence, Intellectual Property or trade secret will be adversely affected by such a disclosure. In fact, in the interest of transparency, such information should be made public particularly when crores of sponsorships are being collected, and such money is being spent on running a national sport. Certainly, such a disclosure cannot harm the competitive position of any third party, who is in the business of making an existence out of their business.
3. To my point no. 5, the CPIO has again avoided a direct answer, Hockey India is conducting a national sport and it is absolutely imperative for it to be open and transparent about payments that it makes to consultants of all hues, auditors- Internal and statutory. Legal consultants, tax consultants, lawyers etc. my questions remains-How much and to whom have been paid by Hockey India/HIL during the last two years? I am sure that you would be required to give a utilization certificate to your sponsors for the various amounts that you would have taken from them.
4. Please note that all my questions serve public interest and are strictly under the four corners of RTI Act, 2005.
I look forward to receiving specific answers to my above three queries ASAP, that have been unanswered by the CPIO. Needless to state, I will be constrained to approach CIC if I do not receive a satisfactory reply within the next 7 days."
6. On 15.01.2016, Shri Cdr. R.K. Srivastava, Appellate Authority wrote a letter to the appellant, stating as under:
"1. Kindly refer to your letter No. KA/7085/dated1.1.2016 making further appeal on the 1st Appeal made under RTI Act, 2005.
2. I have gone through the necessary records and noted that you have made an RTI application dated 13.09.2015 which was duly replied by CPIO vide her letter dated 09.10.2015, 13.10.2015 and your first appeal made to undersigned as appellate authority on 15.10.2015 which was duly replied vide letter dated 13.11.2015.
3. It appears that you have not received the reply given by undersigned to your first appeal dated 15.10.2015 as such a copy thereof is enclosed for ready reference."
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 7
7. Claiming dissatisfaction, the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 16.06.2016, which was listed on 31.08.2016 for hearing. The respondent authority i.e. Hockey India submitted a reply as under:
"1. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that appeal number CIC/KY/A/2015/000938, titled Sh. S.C. Aggarwal vs. CPIO, Hockey India &Anr., involving similar issues is pending before the full bench of this Hon'ble Commission. TO obviate the possibility of conflicting decisions, on the same subject matter and relating to the same Respondent, it is respectfully requested that either the decision in the present appeal await the outcome of CIC/KY/A/2015/00093, or that the present appeal be transferred to be listed along with CIC/KY/A/2015/00093, so both appeal may be heard and decided together.
2. Without prejudice to the above, the Respondent Hockey India submits their response to the appeal as follows:
A. In the RTI Application dated 13.9.2015, the Appellant had sought information from the CPIO, Hockey India under 7 heads. The CPIO, Hockey India by a letter dated 9.10.2015 replied to the said RTI Application and provided information relating to 7 points as sought in the RTI Application. The Appellant was satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO with respect to serial no. 1, 4, 6 and 7. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Hockey India limited to 3 points (i.e., Point No. 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI Application dated 13.9.2015) dated 15.10.2015. The Appellate Authority, Hockey India by a letter dated 13.11.2015 replied to the first appeal and affirmed the reply issued by the CPIO.
B. It appears from the appeal now filed before this Hon'ble Commission, that information with regard to serial no. 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the RTI application have been provided to the satisfaction of the Appellant.
C. The Appellant has failed to cite any public interest for which he seeks the information. In the absence of any public interest being cited, the present appeal is not maintainable, as the remaining information sought, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
D. All information that is subject to disclosure by the Respondent under the RTI Act has been disclosed by the CPIO. Hockey India is compliance 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.
E. The remaining information, which are the subject matter of the present appeal, and pertain to Point No. 2, 3 and 5 of the application, are dealt with separately below:
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 8
(i) Point 2 - Appellant seeks, "Please provide details of
sponsorship amount received by Hockey India and hockey India League in the last two years."
The information sought by the Appellant was provided to him by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. Sponsorship amounts received are reflected in the audited statement of accounts available on the Hockey India website at "http://hockeyindia.org/accounts". Accounts are available from 2010 to 2015. The RTI request cannot be expanded from the original application at the Appellate stage, to seek additional information. It is submitted that the request at Point No. 2 of the application stands answered in full by the CPIO and Appellant Authority.
(ii) Point 3 - Appellant seeks, "Amount of commission paid for getting sponsorships during the past three years along with names addresses of the persons/agencies who were paid the commission."
In this regard, it is important to note the following:
1) The information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d).
2) Disclosure of such information would affect the competitive position that the Hockey India League wields, with regard to its competitor leagues and organizations. Suh information is likely to be misused by competitors.
3) Agreements relating to sponsorships are confidential in nature. The agreements executed with third parties contain confidentiality clauses, clearly demonstrating the intention of the third parties and Hockey India to maintain the terms of such agreements as confidential.
4) This Hon'ble Commission, has held in the case of Sh. Anil Kumar vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Appeal No. 25/ICPB/2006 that disclosure of the information sought in that case would be in the breach of the confidentiality clause and as such the CPIO & Appellate had rightly declined to furnish the information.
5) The Hockey India League does not receive any public funds. The HIL does not avail of any government subsidies.
6) The Appellant does not cite any public interest for which the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) ought to be waived.
(iii) Point 5 - The Appellant seeks "Expenses incurred on consultancy and legal expenses in the last 2 years with name of each consultants and lawyers engaged by Hockey India and Hockey India League".
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 9 In this regard, it is important to note the following:
1) The expenditure incurred on consultancy and legal expenses in the last 2 years are already been placed in public domain by posting the Hockey India at "http://hockeyindia.org/accounts".
2) The remaining information sought is exempt from disclosure. All correspondences between a legal consultant/advocate and their client is information treated as confidential and is shared through the process of a fiduciary relationship. Therefore, the information sought is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act.
3) It is well settled that all communications between an advocate and a client are confidential in nature and protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege.
4) The information sought is also exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), as it is information of commercial confidence and trade secret (i.e. legal strategies for various case), cannot be made available to the general public.
5) The information is also protected under Section 8(1)(d) as it pertains to third parties (legal counsels/advocates/consultants) to whom the said information is of commercial confidence, and would hurt their competitive position if disclosed.
6) The information sought also constitutes the personal information of the concerned advocates/legal consultants and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of these persons, and is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).
7) Given the fact that no public funds are utilized towards the legal expenses of Hockey India or the Hockey India League, no public interest could be served by such disclosure.
8) It is well settled in law that information received in a fiduciary capacity (as in the case of an advocate and client) is protected from disclosure. Case law supporting this proposition is annexed as Annexure 2 (colly) in Pradeep Pachikara vs. SEBI, Mumbai (CIC/MP/A/2016/0003660 &RajanVerma vs. UOI (2007 SCC Online P&H 1161).
F. The Appellant, in the present appeal makes a bald statement that there is an overriding public interest for which the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) or Section 8(1)(e) should be waived in view of "the shocking exposures made in respect to BCCI and IPL relating to cricket". It is respectfully submitted that the said "exposures" have no relation to matters pertaining to the Answering Respondent, and no case of an overriding public interest has been made out.
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 10
G. The Appellant relies on the case of Sh. S C Aggarwal vs. Alliance Air
(CIC/SS/A/2010/000931 and CIC/SS/A/2010/000933) dated
23.2.2011 in support of his appeal. The said decision however, does not aid his case. The case of Alliance Air has no applicability to the present case as, the Hockey India League does not receive Government funds, grants or avail of any kind of government subsidies. The HIL is run on a commercial basis. Given the fact that there are no public funds involved in the Hockey India League, no public purpose could exist in disclosure for disclosure of its commercially sensitive information. In the case of Alliance Air, this Hon'ble Commission directed disclosure of information on the ground of violation of rules, which is not the Appellant's case in the present appeal.
H. In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed, that the present Appeal be dismissed.
8. The Commission disposed of the matter vide its decision dated 01.09.2016 saying:
"5. During hearing of the second appeal on 31.08.2016, it is submitted by Shri Sameer Bahadur, on behalf of Appellant, that appellant has received the complete and satisfactory information against all issues except issues no. 2, 3 & 5 of his RTI application dated 13.09.2015. Therefore, he wants to press issues no. 2, 3 & 5 only of the RTI application dated 13.09.2015. For this, Shri Sameer Bahadur has also given his hand written submissions dated 31.08.2016 during hearing of the appeal.
6. On careful perusal of the nature of issues no. 2, 3 & 5, as raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 13.09.2015 and respondent's response dated 09.10.2015, it is revealed to the Commission that the respondents have denied the required information to the appellant by stating that the information is already available in Public Domain i.e. http://hockeyindia.org&http://league.hockeyindia.org/, against these issues (i.e. issues no. 2, 3 & 5). On this, it is submitted by Shri Sameer Bahadur that respondent's portal (http://hockeyindia.org) , is quite incomplete, however, the respondents are taking such plea for the name sake an to deprive the appellant from having the required information. On this, it is submitted by Ms. ShyelTrehan, LearnedAdvocate that her client's portal is quite complete and she is even ready to give a print thereof containing the complete information on issues no. 2, 3 & 5, if need be. As such, the Commission thinks that it is not only appropriate but also seems to be justified to accede the learned advocate's request in the circumstances of the case. Thus, acceded to.
7. The Commissioner heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perusedthe case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 11 application dated 13.09.2015, respondent's response dated 09.10.2015, FAA's order dated 13.11.2015, other material made available on record respondent's written submissions dated 31.08.2016, appellant's written submissions dated 31.08.2016 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
8. The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act 2005, even after lapse of more than eleven months period. As such, the Commission feels that appellant's second appeal deserves to be allowed partly i.e. against issues no. 2, 3 & 5. Therefore, it is allowed accordingly.
9. In view of the position above, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justified to direct the respondents to take out the print containing the complete information, against issues no. 2, 3 & 5, of the appellant's RTI application dated not complete, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete & categorical information against issues no 2, 3 & 5 to the appellant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 may also be invoked in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
9. The respondent public authority i.e. Hockey India approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the decision of this Commission vide W.P. (C) 8997/2016, wherein the Hon'ble Court vide its Order dated 10.07.2018 disposed/remanded the matter back to the Commission, saying:
"1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 01.09.2016 (hereafter the 'impugned order') passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter 'the CIC') allowing respondent no.2's second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act').
2. MrNayyar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionercontended that the impugned order was passed by erroneously recording theconcession stated to have been made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner. He submitted that an affidavit indicating that no concession wasmade with respect to information sought at point nos.3 & 5 (the amount ofcommission paid for getting sponsorship during the past three yearsalongwith the names, addresses of the persons/agencies who were paid thecommission; and expenditure incurred on consultancy and legal expenses inthe last two years with name of each consultants and lawyers engaged byHockey India and Hockey India League) has been filed by the counselappearing for the petitioner before the CIC. He further submits that theimpugned award is, essentially, unreasoned and, therefore, liable to be setaside.
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 12
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents seriously disputethe contention that the concession as stated was not made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner. However, this Court is not inclined to enter intothe said controversy. Undisputedly, the CIC has not provided any reasonsfor allowing the appeal. This is apparent from a plain reading of paragraphno.6 of the impugned order, which is set out below:
"6. On careful perusal of the nature of issues no.2, 3 & 5, asraised by the appellant in his RTI application dated13.09.2015 and respondent's response dated 09.10.2015,it is revealed to the Commission that the respondentshave denied the required information to the appellant by stating that the information is already available in PublicDomain i.e. http://hockeyindia.org &http://league./hockeyindia.org/ against these issues (i.e.issues no.2, 3 & 5). On this, it is submitted by ShriSameer Bahadur that respondent's portal(http://hockeyindia.org. &http://league.hockeyindia.org), is quite incomplete,however, the respondents are taking such plea for thename sake and to deprive the appellant from having therequired information. On this, it is submitted by MsShyelTrehan, learned Advocate that her client's portal isquite complete and she is even ready to give a printthereof containing the complete information on issuesno.2, 3 & 5, if need be. As such, the Commission thinksthat it is not only appropriate but also seems to bejustified to accede the learned advocate's request in thecircumstances of the case. Thus, acceded to."
4. In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to set aside theimpugned order and remand the matter to the CIC to consider it afresh after hearing all the parties. It is so directed.
5. This Court further requests CIC to consider the said appeal anddispose of the same within a period of 12 weeks from today.6. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on thequestion whether the information as sought for by respondent no.2 is exemptfrom disclosure in terms of Section 8 of the Act and nothing stated hereinshould be construed as such.
7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pendingapplications are also disposed of"
Proceedings on 28.08.2018:
10. Learned counsel for respondent authority Ms. ShyelTrehan with Ms. Sonali Malik argued on behalf of Hockey India at length contending that information on points 2, 3, and 5 of RTI application could not be given to secure the interest mentioned in Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of RTI Act.
11. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. Aditya Kumar Chaudhary, Mr. Ajit Kumar Pathak and Mr. Sameer Bahadur, representative of appellant were present. Learned counsel Mr. Choudhary argued on behalf of appellant at length contending huge CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 13 public interest in the interest of transparency and claimed that as a citizen interested in sports promotion, the appellant has a right to know under RTI Act and even right to contest to any office of the respondent authority.
12. Learned counsel for respondent authority has raised certain points in reply with regard to lack of public interest and alleged the private interest behind RTI application to target a senior cabinet minister and other office bearers of Hockey India, hence certain information could not be furnished.
13. Learned counsel for appellant added a few more points of clarifications at the end. The hearing is completed.
14. The Commission noted that learned counsel for respondent authority invoked section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) with reference to points 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI application, to secure the interests mentioned therein. The counsel wanted the Commission to examine whether information sought under points 2, 3 and 5 would harm the interests as claimed and to facilitate such examination, agreed that the respondent authority would submit the information sought in a sealed cover to the Commission along with a written note explaining how each of such information should be protected from disclosure, by 10th September, 2018 through an authorized representative to the office of IC(SA).
15. The learned counsel for respondent authority also agreed to provide the certified copies of:
a. original constitution/memorandum of association at the time of its registration and amendments to it if any;
b. the public authority's policy of conflict of interest and confidentiality; c. the commercial policy/guidelines or norms, if any, if there is no such policy, certification that there is no such policy;
d. anti-corruption policy;
e. code of conduct for office bearers;
f. the policy with reference to HIL and rules regarding tickets; and g. any other policy documents relevant for the subject matter under question, before 10th September, 2018.
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 14
16. The learned counsel for appellant wanted to file a written submission to rebut the contentions including the case law presented by the learned counsel for respondent authority, before 10th September, 2018. Both the parties agreed to exchange their submissions except those which are submitted only for the Commission. The case is posted for summing up on 12th September, 2018 at 12:00PM. The Commission orders accordingly.
17. The parties shall treat this as communication of notice for hearing on 12th September, 2018 and also note that there will be no further adjournment.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 15