Central Information Commission
V. Ram Chandra Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs Rashtraiya Ispat Nigam Ltd. on 29 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RINLT/A/2023/109379.
Shri. V. Ram Chandra Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Rashtraiya Ispat Nigam Ltd.
Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025
Date of Decision : 27.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.11.2022
PIO replied on : 12.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 21.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 08.12.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1) ( Copy of complete File Notings in respect of - (a) RINL Legal Notice dated 04/06/2020 of advocate Meera Jain, (b) RINL termination notice No. RINL/VSP/2020-21/118 dt. 22/06/2020 for CA contract at Kanpur, (c) RINL termination notice No. RINL/VSP/2020-21/19 dated 22/06/2020 for CA contract at Agra,
(d) RINL revised notice of demand of balance shortage claim dues of Kanpur stockyard vide letter No. VSP/KNP/2020-21/119 dated 22/06/2020
(ii) Copy of all documents since 01/02/2020 till date, including all communications, letters, opinions, reports and notings pertaining to M/s V. Ram Chandra Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Agra & Kanpur.
(iii) Please provide the details relating to actual loss/ amount suffered by RINL due to shortages found in the Kanpur Stockyard during physical stock verification on 20.02.2020 to 24.02.2020 and steps taken by RINL to mitigate said loss."
The CPIO vide letter dated 12.11.2022 replied as under:-
Page 1 "1. Arbitration proceedings Against the Party M/s V Ramachandra Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd. Kanpur are under progress.
2. Arbitral Tribunal was Constituted with mutual consent of both the parties M/s V Ram Chandra Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd, Kanpur tind RINL on 19/10/2022 as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Preliminary orders are passed by the Tribunal. 3. RTI applicant M/s V Ram Chandra Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd, Kanpur is Respodent in above Arbitration case, since the matter is sub-
Judice information sought by the party cannot be provided as per the Section 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 08.12.2022 stated as under:-
"It is observed that CPIO has been liberal enough and furnished reply to the applicant that Arbitral Tribunal was constituted with mutual consent of both the parties and also documents like communications and letters have been shared vide Statement of Claim. With the above observation and points brought out in the analysis, since the documents are already been submitted, further nothing is to be submitted by CPIO, the appeal is disposed.."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 23.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under;
In this connection, we would like to submit that it is not a fact that no information sought by him has been furnished or information is not exempted by citing some case. The replies given by the PIO and FAA are in order in view of the following reasons:
i. The Information sought is under sub judice (Under Arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) and CPIO has furnished the reply accordingly.
ii. In the Appeal, the appellant quoted that section 8(i)d does not apply to the present case which is factually not correct since internal notings are part of commercial confidence and it may hamper the ongoing arbitration cases.
iii. In the Appeal, the appellant quoted that section 8(i)h does not apply to the present case which is factually not correct. As already arbitration tribunal is formed and the case is being heard as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Ld. Arbitrator under the Arbitration process.
iv. The documents are scanned and sent to the appellant on registered mail id ([email protected], thro whatsup on Phone No 9760401754 on 22/11/2022 and the same is also seen by the party by concerned dealing officer. The Statement of Claim as pdf document and physical copies were sent by registered post (as per the Existing terms of the CA Contract at Kanpur and as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under the Arbitration process.
Page 2 v. It is observed that CPIO has been liberal enough and furnished reply to the applicant that Arbitral Tribunal was constituted with mutual consent of both the parties and also documents like communications and letters have been shared vide Statement of Claim.
Moreover, this is to submit that though the required documents were scanned and physically sent in the claim statement of the arbitration, it is not understood how he is appealing for further information and seeking internal notings of file movement which falls in commercial confidence in nature and are exempted as per RTI clause. It is further to inform that party has filed a case in the district commercial court Visakhapatnam against the arbitration award and the case in on going.
6. The above allegation are factually wrong, misleading and with malafide intention to malign reputation of RINL.
7. Further we would like to submit to the RTI Act 2005 is not for settling the disputes arising and there is a separate process for arbitration and appealing in courts. It is for empowering the citizens to create an informed citizenry.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Kumar Amit, DGM(Marketing)- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Respondent reiterated the averment made in their written submission and stated that the information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. He stated that the services of Appellant Consignment agency was hired for Agra and Kanpur. He stated that consignment of 1300 tons-worth Rs 8 crore was sold by the Appellant without authorisation and an arbitration proceeding in this regard was initiated by the parties. He stated that relevant documents viz. communication and letters were shared with statement of claim and no further information remained to be disseminated.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the Page 3 given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)