Skip to main content

Pending arbitration no ground for withholding info: CIC

Pendency of an arbitration proceeding or a litigation cannot be a reason to deny information to an RTI applicant by any government department, the Central Information Commission has ruled.

"The mere pendency of arbitration proceedings is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information. The RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirement for sub-judice matters.

"The only exemption in sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court," Information Commissioner Basant Seth said in his order.

The case relates to an RTI petitioner who sought from MTNL, through 34 different applications, details of expenditure which are being inquired into by the authorities.

The Information officer refused to disclose the information citing section 8(1)(h) of the RTI.

The section prohibits disclosure of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

The officer said the appellant is a contractor who has been black-listed by the department in 2007 and various disputes regarding his payments are presently before an arbitrator and hence the information sought by him is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

However, Seth said the information requested by the petitioner cannot be denied on this ground, saying, "...the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be sustained...the CPIO should allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his aforesaid 34 RTI applications within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order."

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more