M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LIMITED and ANR. V. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER and 3 ORS

WP(C)/3683/2014

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commissioner, which upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority directing the disclosure of certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information sought pertained to the eligibility status of the petitioners' company under the Industrial Policy of 1997 and exemptions under specific Central Excise Notifications. The petitioners argued that the information sought fell under exceptions to disclosure as per Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. However, the court found that the disclosure was warranted in the larger public interest and that the petitioners had not claimed confidentiality regarding the specific information sought.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725817 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Central Public Information, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act, 2005, Companies Act 1956, Central Excise Notification No.33/99-CE, Central Excise Notification No.32/99-CE
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C KEYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A DAS
• Keywords: Central Excise exemption; Confidentiality; Disclosure of information; Public interest; Right to Information; Industrial Policy of 1997
• Section: 11; 19(4); 8(1)(d); 8(1)(e)

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010125642014 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No.: WP(C)/3683/2014 M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LIMITED and ANR. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NEW BONGAIGAON P.O. and DIST.- BONGAIGAON REP. BY SHRI JAGADISH CHANDRA PAUL ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS. 2: JAGADISH CHANDRA PAUL S/OO- LT. JAMINI KANTA PAUL R/O- KAMAKHYA COLONY MALIGAON GHY- 12. VERSUS THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER and 3 ORS CUM 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 ROOM NO. 308 2ND FLOOR AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI- 66. 2:THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE and SERVICE TAX COMMISSIONERATE CUM 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY- 5. 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUM CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Page No.# 2/7 DHUBRI DIST.- DHUBRI PIN- 783301. 4:SHARMISTHA MITRA SINHA 57 / 1 / 1 DHARAMTALLA LANE FLAT NO. 101 FIRST FLOOR SIBPUR HOWRAH WEST BENGAL- 711102. ------------ Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. A. Das, Advocate Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. S. C. Keyal, SC, Central Excise BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date of Hearing : 04.08.2023 Date of Judgment : 04.08.2023 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 as the Second Appellant Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereby the decision of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 15.12.2011 was upheld. 2. The facts involved in the instant case is that the respondent No.4 herein had filed an application before the Central Public Information Officer, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, G. S. Road, Bhangagarh on 01.09.2011 seeking various information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. A perusal of the said information so sought for would show that the said Page No.# 3/7 information pertains to granting of the eligibility status of the petitioners’ Company under the Industrial Policy of 1997 and the exemption to be granted in terms with the Central Excise Notification No.33/99-CE and Notification No.32/99-CE, both dated 08.07.1999 and the orders passed by the public authorities. It reveals from the records that the said application was rejected by the Public Information Officer, i.e. the respondent No.3. Thereupon, the respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, i.e. the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide an order dated 15.12.2011, taking into account that the information so sought for were in respect to certain actions and orders being passed by the public authorities which can be revealed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 directed the respondent No.3 to provide copies of all documents containing the information sought for by the respondent No.4 within 30 days of the receipt of the said order subject to realization of the appropriate fees as laid down in the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005. The petitioners herein being aggrieved preferred a second appeal before the respondent No.1 and the second appeal was dismissed vide an order dated 27.05.2014 thereby affirming the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the First Appellate Authority as well as the Second Appellate Authority did not take into consideration Section 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (e) which were exceptions from disclosure of information and the case of the petitioners herein falls squarely within the said purview of the said provisions, and as such, the First Appellate Authority as well as the Second Appellate Authority erred in law in directing the respondent No.3 to provide the said information. Page No.# 4/7 5. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to take note of that Section 8 (1) begins with the non-obstinate phrase “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act”. The import of this phrase is that Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 carves out an exception to the general obligation to disclose under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘The RTI Act’) where the conditions set out in any of the Sub-Clauses in Clause (1) of Section 8 are satisfied, the Information Officer is under no obligation to provide information to the applicant. It is further seen that by expressly enumerating the circumstances in which the disclosure of information may be restricted on the ground of certain identified harm, the RTI Act negates the notion that the information may be withheld on the grounds of confidentiality simplicitor. A harm under Section 8(1) must be identified and invoked to justify the non-disclosure of a document requested for under the RTI Act. It is also pertinent to note that Clauses (a), (b), (c), (f) (g) and (h) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 provide an absolute exemption from the obligation of disclosure under the RIT Act. However, Clauses (d), (e), (i) and (j) to Sub-Clause (1) of Section 8 provide qualified exemption from disclosure, viz. while Sub-Clause (a) of Clause (1) of Section 8 provides an unconditional exemption wherein it is determined that the disclosure of the information sought would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. But on the other hand, Sub-Clause (d) to Clause (1) of Section 8 provides that the information is exempted from disclosure where such document/disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. It is further relevant to take note of that the said exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) is qualified by the phrase “unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure”. Thus the exemption under Sub-Clauses (d) and (e) of Clause (1) of Section 8 is not absolute but is qualified and cannot be invoked where there Page No.# 5/7 exist the larger public interest. It is further seen that where the Information Officer determine that larger public interest warrants a disclosure, the exemption in Sub-Clauses (d) and (e) of Clause (1) of Section 8 cannot be invoked as the information must be disclosed. 6. It is also relevant to take note of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which relates to disclosure of third party information. It is pertinent to note that third party information in terms with Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act are information which have been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party. 7. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Central Public Information, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 481 wherein at paragraph No.70, the Supreme Court in its majority judgment after making a copious detail of the various earlier pronouncements observed what comes within the ambit of personal information. The said paragraph being relevant is quoted herein under:- “……. 70. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available Page No.# 6/7 when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.” 8. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court, therefore, take note of the information which were sought for vide the application dated 01.09.2011. From a perusal of the information so sought for as enumerated from Clauses 1 (a) to 1 (x), the said information pertains to public activity except the information so sought for in Clause 1(g). The information as regards Clauses 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w) and (x) are information which are in relation to claiming exemption in terms with the Industrial Policy of 1997 and the Notification issued by the Central Excise Authorities granting exemption as well as the exemption and benefits so granted to the petitioners’’ Company by the Central Excise Authorities. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dated 15.11.2011 in directing the said information in respect to the information so sought for in the application dated 01.09.2011 from Clauses 1 (a) to 1 (x) except Clause 1(g). 10. Now coming to the information as regards Clause 1 (g) of the Application, this Court enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners claimed confidentiality while furnishing the list of manufacturers or suppliers of the equipments/machineries of plants before the Central Excise Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instructions in that regard. It is also relevant to take note of that there is no pleading to the effect that confidentiality was claimed at the time of furnishing the information pertaining to the list of manufacturers/suppliers of the equipments/machineries of the plants before the Central Excise Department. Page No.# 7/7 Taking into account the above, it is the further opinion of this Court that the information sought for under Clause 1 (g) of the application dated 01.09.2011 would not come within the ambit of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 11. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which pertains to Section 19 (4) of the RTI Act in as much as it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reasonable opportunity had to be given to the third party when an appeal is preferred relating to the information of third party. The said submission though at the first blush looks attractive but the same is misconceived taking into account that the petitioners herein did not claim confidentiality to come within the ambit of Section 11 of RTI Act. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant "