Dear HumJanenge Friends
For many years now (ie. from very soon after Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
became an IC) I have been PUBLICLY highlighting Shailesh Gandhi's
CORRUPT / UNREASONED / CYCLO-STYLED decisions especially involving RTI
"activists" and "RTI blackmailers" and various dubious NGOs.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has yet again upheld my observations
concerning Mr. Shailesh Gandhi's "Wholly unreasoned and Mechanically
Directed" orders".
All that is left now is for a similar observation concerning his
CORRUPTION which I am sure will come out of our still functioning
legal systems eventually.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 459/2012 and C.M. No. 969/2012 (for stay)
ZOOM ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Datta and Mr.Atul Singh,
Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with
Mr. Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjyot
Singh, Advs. for UOI.
Mr.Sanjiv K. Jha, respondent no.1 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
O R D E R
08.05.2012
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated
29.12.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission in complaint No.
CIC/SG/C/2011/000846, whereby the learned CIC has allowed the aforesaid
complaint/appeal preferred by respondent no.1 and directed the disclosure
of information sought by respondent no.1. The queries were made under
three different categories i.e., (A), (B) and (C). While the queries
under category (A) and (B) were of general nature and pertained to the
operating TV channels, and applications pending in the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting of those who are seeking permission for
uplinking and downlinking, the querries under category (C) pertained
specifically to the petitioner. The respondent-querist had sought, in
relation to the petitioner ?photocopies of all the pages of file/files
along with all documents, correspondence etc. and file noting of the
Television channel named as ?MOVIES NOW? Telecasting movies.? The
querist had also sought information with regard to the ?date on which the
application for permission to telecast was received from ?MOVIES NOW? and
the date on which the permission was granted?.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Datta
is that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the same is
wholly unreasoned. The CIC has mechanically directed the provision of
the information sought by the applicant under all the three categories
without even examining whether the same would breach the confidentiality
or trade secrets of the entities to whom the information related under
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, even though the PIO had denied the
application made by the querist by placing reliance on Section 8(1(d) of
the Act.
The petitioner has set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ
petition the nature of the information contained in the respondent?s file
pertaining to the petitioner?s application to seek permission for
uplinking/downlinking and, according to the petitioner, the information
contained in the said file is of the following nature:
?9. It is submitted that while making an application for g rant of a
license to operate a television channel, the Petitioner was required to
provide intimate and extremely sensitive personal data pertaining to its
Directors, including their PAN card number, passport details, residential
addresses, personal telephone number, educational qualifications etc. The
entire file pertaining to any Television channel with the Respondent No.3
contains several details and confidential personal information about
directors of the company applying for permission to telecast.
10. Furthermore, the Petitioner had also disclosed its net worth, share
holding pattern, cross-holding details, balance sheets, and profit and
loss accounts of closely held companies. All the information submitted to
Respondent No. 3 by Petitioner is in the nature of commercial confidence
and trade secrets, being financial data, profit and loss statements,
balance sheet, annual plans, business plans, distribution network,
satellite contracts, shareholding pattern of Petitioner Company as well
its holding Company, BCCL. The information by its very nature is
such that it is bound to give and edge to the competitors of
Petitioner and
harm its competitive position in an extremely competitive media industry.
It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner and its holding Company, BCCL
are unlisted Companies and the details of its shareholding pattern or net
worth is not in public domain and therefore is even more confidential and
sensitive.?
The further submission of Mr. Datta is that the CIC did not even
adhere to the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act, even though
the information pertained to a third party i.e., the petitioner. Before
issuing direction to grant information to the querist, notice ought to
have been issued to the petitioner and consent/objections invited from
the petitioner, which was not done. Mr. Datta submits that the impugned
order being in gross violation of principles of natural justice is null
and void.
On 20.01.2012 when the writ petition was entertained for the first
time and notice was issued, it was directed that respondent no.2 (who has
been renumbered as respondent no.1 upon deletion of CIC as a party
respondent) shall not part with the information, or exploit the
information sought by him and provided to him in response to query (C),
in so far as it pertains to the financial transactions, shareholding
pattern, distribution network, satellite plan of the petitioner.
Respondent no.1 who appears in person has submitted that he does
not wish to file a counter affidavit and, therefore, he has argued the
matter by making oral submissions. He submits that the reasoning adopted
by the CIC can be found in its order at running Page 21 of the record. He
submits that the CIC has observed that the said information is liable to
be disclosed under Section 4 of the Act by the concerned department.
I have perused the impugned order and heard learned counsels
for the parties. I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be
sustained, and is liable to be set aside as it has been passed without
recording any reasons whatsoever, and is clearly in breach of the
petitioner?s rights under Section 11 of the Act. The impugned order
having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, is
null and void.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reasons whatsoever
have been recorded while directing disclosure of the information sought
by the querist. The defence of the PIO that the information could not be
provided as it could be hit by Section 8(i)(d) has not been addressed at
all. Even though information sought in category ?C? querries was
specifically in relation to the petitioner, the petitioner was not
noticed.
The argument of the querist, that the reasoning adopted by the CIC
is that the information should be made available by the public authority
suo moto under Section 4 of the Act is not correct. A perusal of the
relevant paragraph of the impugned order shows that the CIC has
merely recorded the submission of the querist founded upon Section 4
of the Act.
There is no finding returned by the CIC, based on any discussion, that
the information sought by the querist indeed is liable to be disclosable
under Section 4 of the Act.
In any event, since the information sought by the respondent
querist pertained, inter alia, to the petitioner specifically, the
petitioner ought to have been noticed under Section 11 of the Act.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the CIC to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh
reasoned order after granting hearing to the petitioner. Consequently,
the respondent querist is directed to return the entire information
received by him in terms of the impugned order of the CIC to the PIO of
respondent no.3 without retaining any copy thereof.
The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
MAY 08, 2012
