Central Information Commission
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 July, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/001354
Date of Hearing : July 30, 2012
Date of Decision : July 30, 2012
Videoconference
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh
243, GF, Lane No. 3
Shakti Khand4
Indirapuram
Ghaziabad
U.P.
The Appellant was not present.
Respondents
Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR)
(Eastern Region)
Metro Rail Bhavan 10th Floor
33/1, J.L. Nehru Raod
Kolkata 700 071
Represented by: Shri B.K. Mahapatra, APIO.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/001354
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 12.12.2011) with the PIO, CONCOR, Kolkata seeking certain information (like, copies of inspection note prepared by Shri Behra; list of duties performed by him outside the office; approval of the competent authority for such duties etc.) about an employee, namely, Shri Ajay Kumar Behra, IRTS, CONCOR, Kolkata. The PIO on 19.12.2011 declined the disclosure of inspection notes; duties performed outside the office and when out of station; approval of competent authority in this regard etc. claiming commercial confidence. As for lists, the PIO stated that no such list is being maintained by the public authority. The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the PIO's reply, filed his first appeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 28.12.2011. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 07.02.2012 concluded that "withholding of information under Section 8(1)(d) by APIO is fully justified under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005." He in his order also, interalia, mentioned that the CONCOR being a commercial entity is required to keep details of visits/meeting confidential as disclosure of the same will certainly harm the competitive position of the Company. The Appellant thereafter filed the present petition dated nil before the Commission which was received on 27.02.2012 challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents reiterated their position that the information sought by the Appellant here deals with commercial confidence, trade secret of the public authority which if allowed to be disclosed to the Appellant would harm their competitive position in the market. As for the list demanded by the Appellant, they reaffirmed that no such list is maintained by them.
3. Upon hearing the submissions above and on examining the arguments presented by the Appellant in the present petition visàvis his request for information and the Respondents' view thereon, I find myself in agreement with the Respondents that the disclosure of the present information would attract exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTIAct since it deals with commercial confidence of the public authority who being a commercial entity of the Government of India is competing with other private companies in the market. Further, the Appellant has not made out any case of the larger public interest which would warrant the disclosure of the present information. It is, therefore, not possible to allow the present appeal, which is directed to be rejected. Case is closed.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh 243, GF, Lane No. 3 Shakti Khand4 Indirapuram Ghaziabad U.P.
2. Public Information Officer (RTI) Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR) (Eastern Region) Metro Rail Bhavan 10th Floor 33/1, J.L. Nehru Raod Kolkata 700 071
3. Officer incharge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.