|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/POSTS/A/2018/102584||25 Jun, 2018||BK Porwal Vs PIO, Deptt of Posts
ISSUE :The applicant, facing an inquiry for sexual harassment, requested for documents relating to the inquiry. The CPIO rejected the request under sections 8(1)(d) and (g).
DECISION : By denying the information the appellant was not only harassed by the public authority but also by the CPIO. While the public authority denied him the documents which he was entitled under SHW Act of 2013, the CPIO denied them under RTI Act.
…..the Commission concludes that denial of information to the appellant was without any reasonable cause and hence liable for maximum penalty of Rs 25,000/-
The Commission also finds it a fit case to recommend the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO.
|2||CIC/BSNLD/A/2016/297934||24 Jul, 2017||Sh. Shiv Prakash Soni Vs. CPIO, Addl. GM (Admn. & Plng), BSNL, O/o .General Manager (Admn. & Plng), Jodhpur Telecom Dist., Jodhpur
The appellant filed RTI application dated 08.04.2016 seeking information regarding: rules and regulations of BSNL to open two franchises in same area for selling the BSNL sims; rules and regulations of BSNL for franchisees to sell the sims of BSNL, etc. Commission observed that the respondent has wrongly invoked section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The information sought does not appear to be in the nature of commercial confidence. Hence, the respondent should transfer appellant’s RTI application to Jaipur Circle within 5 days of receipt of this order, who in turn shall give a reply to the appellant within 15 days. Further, the respondent is directed to show cause, within 15 days of receipt of this order, why action should not be taken against him for giving incorrect reply to the appellant.
|3||CIC/SH/A/2016/000149||13 Feb, 2017||Ashwani Arora vs CPIO, Union Bank of India, Mumbai
Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence — the Commission directed the CPIO to provide the information, in respect of the years 2015 and 2016, to the Appellant, after redacting from it, under section 10 of the RTI Act, the information concerning delegation of powers to the officers of the bank regarding OTS and the information that is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
|4||CIC/SB/A/2016/000528-BJ||30 Jan, 2017||Karanjit Singh vs O/o the Commissioner of Customs Inland Container Deport, Vadodra
Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence. Section 11 Third Party Information. The Commission held that the plea of exemption under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act cannot be blindly applied as the appellant is seeking information that involves public interest in the form of revenues earned by the government departments and therefore, the information in a generalized format needs to be disclosed. More so, in the light of inability of the respondent in providing suitable justification for claiming exemption from disclosure, the Commission is not convinced with the stand of the respondent. While disclosing the information sought by the appellant, the respondent could take recourse to section 10(1) of the RTI Act severing any kind of personal details pertaining to the third party.
|5||CIC/SB/A/2016/000034||10 Jan, 2017||Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas vs O/o Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise
Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence — the appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, Central Excise, Tuticorin, seeking information on three points pertaining to M/S V.V. Minerals, including (i) details of Private Bonded Warehouse-wise, minerals-wise stock of Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon etc. available as on 08.082013 and 17.092013; and (ii) copies of monthly returns of mineral-wise inward receipt and outward movement of minerals from August, 2013 to April, 2015 — the Commission held that the information sought relates to third party information, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party and no larger public interest would be served by the disclosure of the information sought. Hence, the information sought is exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and cannot be provided to the appellant.
|6||CIC/MP/A/2016/001329||15 Dec, 2016||Seema Verma vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Gorakhpur
Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence. Section Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. The Commission held that no commercial confidence is involved in clearly intimating the cause of death or the decision from which the policy holder suffered, particularly if this is the reason or one of the reasons of the repudiation of the claim.
The Commission directed the CPIO to provide to the appellant the evidence that the deceased policyholder had been suffering from blood pressure keeping the provisions of section 10(1) of the RTI Act.
|7||CIC/MP/A/2016/001412||15 Dec, 2016||S.C. Bhardwaj vs IRDA, Hyderabad
Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence — the Commission held that the respondent authority had appropriately responded to the appellant. The information sought on points (A & B) i.e. copy of Raksha TPA Agreement and agreements executed between Raksha TPA and four nationalized insurance companies cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, pertained to commercial confidence, trade secrets, which would harm the competitive position of the third party and no larger public interest warrants disclosure of the information to the appellant. However, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide annual report of Raksha TPA for the year 2014-15 to the appellant.
|8||CIC/SH/A/2015/002006||14 Dec, 2016||N P Sinha vs IDBI Bank limited, Mumbai
Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the appellant a gist of the action taken on his application based on the records of the public authority. Regarding the notings etc. concerning the letters of the Appellant, relates to the transfer of his son. Such information cannot be provided to a third party, even if the third party happens to be the father of the employee, without a proper authorization from the employee concerned.
The Commission agreed with the Respondents that disclosure of the rules, circulars regarding the powers exercised by their executives, would compromise their internal decision making procedures, thereby harming their competitive position in the market. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents to deny the information on points No. 2 and 3 under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. However, in response to point No. I, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant only such information as is already available in the public domain
|9||CIC/MP/A/2016/001648||13 Dec, 2016||T.C. Bhandari vs State Bank of India, Panaji, Goa
Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence — the appellant, sought the certified copies of complete manual on loans and advances — the CPIO informed the appellant that the bank's loan manuals were for internal circulation for guidance of the bank's employees only and involved commercial confidence and therefore these were exempt u/s 8(l)(d) of the RTI Act — the Commission held that the respondents have provided an appropriate response in the matter and upheld the FAA's decision.
|10||CIC/SH/A/2015/001672||08 Dec, 2016||Arun Kumar Singh vs Bank of India, Kolkata
Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.
The appellant filed RTI application seeking information on ten points regarding properties mortgaged as security in respect of the loan account of M/s Adisons Construction Ltd., details of assignment of the loan to M/s ARCIL and related issues. The CPIO denied a copy of the assignment deed, concerning assignment of the loan account to M/S ARCIL, under sections 8(1)(d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant sought information regarding the price at which the said properties were assigned to M/s ARCIL and a copy of the assignment agreement of the said properties by the bank to M/s ARCIL.
The Commission uphold the decision of the Respondents to deny the information on point (d) of the RTI application under section 8(I)(d) of the RTI Act.
|11||CIC/MP/A/2016/001223||28 Nov, 2016||Sushil Kejriwal vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai
Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence. Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the appellant did not enclose any authorization from the Board of Directors to obtain information on behalf of the Company along with the RTI application and first appeal. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
|12||CIC/SH/A/2015/001705 CIC/SH/A/2015/002289||23 Nov, 2016||Anil Basu vs Central Bank of India, Kolkata
Section 8(1) (d) Commercial Confidence.
The Commission held that in so far as the locus-standi of the Appellant to seek the information on behalf of the guarantor, M/S Anup India Ltd., is concerned, the Commission notes that he is willing to provide a board resolution, authorizing him to get the information. After the decision of 14.3.2006 cited by the Respondents, the Commission has taken a number of decisions to the effect that the mere fact of a matter being sub-judice cannot become the ground of denial of information. In fact, Section of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure only such information as has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court. No such express forbidding by any court of law/tribunal has been mentioned by the Respondents- The information sought in this case is covered by the exemption granted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
|13||CIC/RK/A/2016/000884-AB||17 Nov, 2016||Bir Singh vs M/o Defence, Garrison Engineer (A/F)
Section 8(1)(d) — held that the information sought by the appellant is relating to approval of the execution of works and date(s) of completion of the work as is not convinced by the plea of the CPIO that disclosure of information would hamper the competitive position of the third party or commercial confidence, However, the reason for extension of the work may be given only if the reasons are available in the form of documents. In the case on hand, as discussed earlier, the issues raised by the and cannot be equated with the commercial interest of certain third larger public interest more and more information should be disclosed. Since, the participation in public auction should encourage greater transparency, it is not discrimination against any party.
|14||CIC/VS/A/2015/002051+2052+2053-AB||19 Oct, 2016||Vishesh Abrol vs Integral Coach Factory, Chennai
Section 8(1) (d) Commercial Confidence.
The appellant filed RTI application and sought copy of the complete minutes of the meeting of the tender committee to decide on certain tender which was opened on 09.06.2014 for supply of rubber metal bonded items; name of the vendor to whom orders had been placed and the price at which the said tender was finalised.
The Commission directed the CPIO to mask technical specification(s), if any, which may exist in the tender committee minutes u/ s 10 of the RTI Act and to provide the rest of the said information in the form of certified copies, free of cost, under section 7(6) of the RTI Act to the appellant.
|15||CIC/SH/A/2015/002212 CIC/SH/A/2016/000398 CIC/SH/A/2015/001493 CIC/SH/A/2016/000698||17 Oct, 2016||M. C. Gupta vs M/o. Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & ors.
Section 8(1)(d) Commercial Confidence.
The Commission held that a good deal of information regarding determination of the dealer commission has already been shared with the Appellant.
However, the Commission agreed with the Respondents that disclosure of detailed calculations of each element included in the dealer commission could harm their competitive position as such information could be used by their competitors. Therefore, there is justification in their denying this information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.