TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such information. This aspect has not been noted or stated in the impugned order. The CIC had passed a decision to give the Minutes of the Board Meeting directing expunction of information which was exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Hence, as noted by the aforenoted judgment, the CIC left the whole thing at the discretion of the petitioner which was held not to be the correct approach. A perusal of the reply given by the CPIO dated 17.09.2014 to respondent No. 2 s application shows that there were in all 10 Board Meetings that had been held. Further details are not on record. In the facts of this case, it would be for the CIC to go into the minutes of the Board Meetings and of the AGMs and to determine as to which of the information which is contained in the minutes attracts the provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, namely, are exempt from disclosure and which portion of the minutes can be given to respondent No. 2 in response to his application under the RTI Act. The matter is remanded back to the CIC for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(C) 11399/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2020 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion sought by respondent No. 2 as above is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 6. Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2014 of CPIO, filed a first appeal dated 20.09.2014 under Section 19 of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 20.10.2014. 7. Respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the said order dated 20.10.2014 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1. Vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2016, respondent No. 1 has directed the petitioner to provide copies of the minutes of the board meetings as well as the resolutions for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2015 after severance of the record containing information which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. Needful was to be done within four weeks. Hence, this writ petition. 8. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has misunderstood the RTI Act in relation to an application seeking/obtaining information. It is stated that the provisions of Section 6 of the RTI Act unambiguously do not mandate any applicant to establish that the information that is bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Reserve Bank of India vs. Kishanlal Mittal, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2662 to support his contentions. He also relies upon a judgment of the CIC in the case of Kishanlal vs. CPIO, 2011 SCC OnLine CIC 16779 . 12. I may first look at the operative portion of the impugned order dated 13.10.2016. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: - 14. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the Commission in Kishanlal Mittal v. CPIO, BSNL has held: .. it is already settled law that the minutes of the meeting(s) of the Board and its Committee(s) cannot be held back by Public Authorities on any account other than situation which falls within any of the exemptions as discussed in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act..... In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide copies of minutes of Board meetings as well as Resolutions for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2015 after severance of the record containing information which is exempted from disclosure under the RTl Act withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . xxx 113. The exemptions to right to information as noted above are contained under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Before we analyse the aforesaid provision, we need to observe basic principles, concerning interpretation of exemption clauses. There is no doubt it is now well settled that exemption clauses need to be construed strictly. They need to be given appropriate meaning in terms of the intention of the legislature [see Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 40; Rechnungshof v. sterreichischer Rundfunk, C-465/00]. 114. At the cost of repetition we note that the exemption of right to information for confidential information is covered under Section 8(1)(d), exemption from right to information under a fiduciary relationship is covered under Section 8(1)(e) and the exemption from private information is contained under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. xxx 121. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act has limited the action of defence of confidentiality to only commercial information, intellectual property rights and those which are concerned with maintaining the competitive superiority. Therefore, aforesaid section is only relatable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the above context, reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education Anr. vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497. In the said judgment, the Court held that indiscriminate and impractical demands under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information unrelated to transparency and accountability would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in executive getting bogged down with non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as follows:- 67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs held in the last two years. It is true that the Commission directed exclusion of the information which was exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, but, that, in my view, was not a correct approach to deal with the matter. By doing so, the Commission left the whole thing to the discretion of the petitioner to decide as to which information would be exempt from disclosure and which information would not attract the exemption provisions contained in the Act. The correct approach, in my view, would have been to call upon the petitioner-bank to satisfy the Commission as to how and to what extent the information sought by the petitioner, included matters of commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property of the petitioner the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party and then take a view in the matter. For this purpose, the Commission could also have examined such part of the information which the petitioner claimed to be exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, without disclosing the same to the respondent. Of course, if the Commission was of the view that larger public interest warranted disclosure of the information, it could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
