Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Internal documents in Union Of India vs Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors. on 18 December, 2018Matching Fragments
(i) The requests lack relevance and/or materiality.
(ii) The requests are mere "fishing and roving" exercise.
(iii) The requests made lack specificity. (iv) The requests made are directed towards internal documents (v) The documents of which disclosure is sought are privileged as they refer to the affairs of the State. (vi) That the documents of which disclosure is sought are privileged
inasmuch as they refer to intra-Governmental discussions.
OMP (COMM) No.44/2018 Pg. 10 of 46
24.2 Insofar as the aspect concerning the file notings was concerned, the Arbitral Tribunal observed that it could not, simply, in one-stroke dismiss OMP (COMM) No.44/2018 Pg. 13 of 46 the request for disclosure of file notings and internal documents only because they did not constitute the Government‟s final decision. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal, while holding that the proportionality of each such request would have to be examined observed that it could not, based on a general objection raised against disclosure of file notings, not deny such a request. According to the Arbitral Tribunal, the UOI‟s submission in this behalf was erroneous as it had also sought a whole range of documents from the respondents/Contractors which may not have resulted in enabling them to reach a final decision in the given matter. In sum, the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of this aspect, in a sense, applied the adage what‟s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 25 The bulwark of the majority reasoning was that given the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the 1996 Act while it is required to follow the principles of natural justice, it is not bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred to as „CPC‟) and/or the Evidence Act.
disclosure of a document
commenting on the AIDP and
arguably directly relevant to a central
issue in this arbitration.
Request No. 2 (Amended request) Disclosure of Granted - UOI consented to disclosing the
earlier versions of, or equivalent October 2017 procedure.
formal documentation dealing with, In deciding whether such consent
the subject-matter of the DGH's would extend to earlier versions of
published October 2017 "Standard the document, the AT held:
Operating Procedure for Declaration - Confidentiality cannot be a ground
of Commerciality" etc. (Standard for non-disclosure, especially when
Operating Procedure). (Documentation the claimants (Respondents herein)
dating from May 2004 to October successfully proved the following:
2013). i. Request is sufficiently specific.
ii. Documentation relevant.
(List of custodians provided) - Therefore, fair disclosure must do
justice to the contentions of both
sides to the argument.
Request No. 3 (Amended request) - Disclosure of Granted - Relevant and admissible material
formal MoPNG or DGH guidelines or should be produced.
procedures concerning methodology or - If formally published guidelines are
criteria for estimation and approval of relevant, as they obviously are, the
OGIP/reserve estimates in proposed same response obtains for earlier
development plans or their revisions such material, even if not published.
OMP (COMM) No.44/2018 Pg. 22 of 46
(Documentation dating from May 2004 - Hence, UOI's other contentions
to October 2013). (List of custodians rendered unpersuasive.
provided)
Request No. 4 Disclosure of formal guidelines or Granted Reasons for granting are same as in
procedures of the MoPNG or DGH in Request no.3 as the UOI's stand is
effect from January 2011 to May 2014 same as in Request no.3.
governing decisions to approve, deny
or revise proposed development well
locations. (List of custodians provided)
Request No. 5 (Amended request) - Disclosure of the Granted - Internal documents not immune
UOI's documents dated between from disclosure just because they are
28.8.2012 and 1.10.2013 concerning internal.
(especially disputing, challenging or - Disclosure is primarily aimed at the
discussing) the decision of the UOI's internal documents of the opposing
representatives on the MC party which have NOT been shared
(Management Committee) not to or disclosed. - Internal documents
approve the RFDP at the meeting of cannot be free of the obligation to
As for the claim to privilege, the A.T. in general rejects it for the reasons and in the terms set out in the Introduction to this Disclosure Order.
Request No. 6 Documents, falling within the period Granted Reasons for granting are same as in of two years before the MC meeting of Request no.5 as the UOI's stand is 1.10.2013, which were sent, received same as in Request no.5. or created by the listed custodians and which went to the UOI representatives on the MC for the purpose of the meeting of 1.10.2013. (List of custodians provided) Request No. 7 The UOI's internal documents, sent, Granted - At the stage of disclosure, it is not received or created in the period from for the Parties to assume, or for the 1.10.2011 to October 2013 by A.T. to rule on, the Parties' custodians whose names have been individual pleaded contentions: that listed to aid a search, discussing the awaits their final award. position taken by the UOI's - The role of disclosure is to allow representatives at the MC meetings fair access to each other's documents held on 2.11.2011 and 7.8.2012, that to permit the several pleaded cases to additional drilling of development be fairly heard and adjudicated. wells was required.