Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

8. That another argument raised was that the information which has been sought regarding the payment of commission, legal fee etc. is pertaining to third party, which cannot be revealed without the consent of the third party under the RTI Act. This Argument is absolutely flawed as the Public Authority which claims of utmost transparency cannot plead exemption of third party information. In fact, the information sought is not a third party information vis-à-vis Hockey India rather the same is a first party information. The information sought is available only with the respondent and the respondent does not need to get the same from any third party so as to take the plea that before revealing such information, it will have to seek the permission of third party. A perusal of Section 11 of the RTI Act CIC/KY/A/2016/001025 Page 14 2005 would show that there is proper procedure prescribed and the intent of the provision is towards revealing the information sought. The applicant has not been made aware of any such proceeding by Hockey India where any third party has been issued any Notice within 5 days of the RTI application made by the applicant and/or any third party appeared before the CPIO and denied sharing of any such information, nor any such document has been produced on record during the first round or even now. In any case, the final discretion is with the CPIO and since the affairs of Hockey India is of public nature, the respondent cannot remain tight lipped on this aspect. Furthermore, the general public has a right to know how the funds available with Hockey India, including funds generated through sponsorship from Public Sector Undertakings i.e. Public funds have been spent and also have right to know whether the funds have been spent and also have a right to know whether the funds have been spent in a lawful manner or otherwise. Secondly, the agents/lawyers who are rendering their respective to the Public authorities cannot deny revealing such information.

Commission holds:If the Ld. Counsel for HI sincerely believed that Gowrishankar's matter will apply to her case, and considered Fee paid to Lawyer as third party information, the HI should have consulted those lawyers, and decided after obtaining their view. There is no such attempt at all. How could HI consider that third party information is not always personal information or trade secret. And Section 11(1) of RTI Act says if the information sought is third party information, the PIO intends to disclose that, PIO has to consult that third party and after obtaining his views, he can decide to give or not. Sadly the HI failed to understand the purpose of Section 11 and misused it as an exception. When the fee is paid by the HI to a lawyer, it is its information, how could it be considered as information furnished by third party?

All discussions at meetings of the Executive Board and Committees are confidential.
Members of the Executive Board and members of Committees must not disclose any discussions that take place at meetings to any third parties.
The Chairs of the Committees are responsible to and report to the Executive Board on all deliberations and discussions that take place at meetings of their respective Committees.

62.This clause imposes a duty on the HI not to disclose all discussions that take place at meeting to any third parties. This clause comes straight in conflict with the RTI Act, and hit by Section 22 and Section 8(2) and hence it is not valid and cannot be followed. The Commission directs this clause to be amended to accommodate disclosure of discussions and decisions of the meetings of Executive Board & Committee Meetings according to RTI Act, 2005.