Central Information Commission
Ms.Leena B Lokare vs Rural Electrification Corporation ... on 21 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/002128
Appellant : Ms Leena B Lokare
Respondent : Rural Electrification Corporation
Ltd/Ministry of Textile
Date of Hearing : 21.9.2011
Date of Decision : 21.9.2011
FACTS :
Heard today dated 21.9.2011. Appellant not present. The public authority is represented by Shri B.P. Yadav, Executive Director; Shri A.P.S. Minocha, DGM (Law) and Shri A.K. Mathur, Chief Manager (Law). The aforesaid officers are heard and the records perused.
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 23.6.2010, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"Copy of a common loan agreement entered into by Rural Electrification Corporation along with Power Finance Corporation, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd, and Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd on 29th September, 2006."
3. Vide letter dated 13.7.2010, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information under clauses (d) & (e) of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. This decision was affirmed by the AA vide order dated 12.8.2010. Hence, the present appeal.
4. It is the submission of Shri Yadav that the loan agreement requested for by the appellant contains information which is of 'commercial confidence' both for REC as also the borrower M/s Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. The requested information is equally of 'commercial confidence' for the other two co-lenders viz Power Finance Corporation and HUDCO. He submits that third party information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest but the appellant has not established any such larger public interest.
5. I have carefully gone through the appeal filed before this Commission and find that the appellant has pleaded that as Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd is involved in the project in question and, therefore, larger public interest is involved. The appellant has nothing more to say than this. I am not impressed by the reasoning given by the appellant. The contract entered into between the lenders and the borrower, indeed, involves commercial confidence and the appellant has not able to demonstrate any larger public interest to warrant disclosure of the information. In the premises, I find no infirmity in the decisions of CPIO and AA. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. Shri B.P. Yadav Executive Director, Rural Electrification Crop Ltd, Core-4, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Ms Leena B Lokare Unit No F/11, 1st Floor, Shantinagar Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd, Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055