M/S Ogilvy & Mather ... v. Dr. Rafeeq Masoodi, ...

August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001689 Date of Hearing : 08.06.2015 Date of Interim Decision : 18.06.2015 Complainant/Appellant : M/s Ogilvy & Mather Pvt. Ltd.

Through Shri Kapil Arora Gurgaon Respondent : Dr. Rafeeq Masoodi, DDG Shri Avinash Kumar Gupta, EE(Vig.) Shri E.S. Isaac, Consultant (Sports) Shri R.P. Talwar, Associate Prasar Bharti DD New Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal: RTI application filed on : 09.09.2013 PIO replied on : 11.10.2013 First Appeal filed on : 18.11.2013 First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 26.12.2013 Complaint/ Second Appeal received on : 16.06.2014 Information sought: The appellant sought certified copies of entire correspondence of file no. 2/29/2009-P.X., certified copies of correspondence of file no.1(2)HB-CWG Cell/2010/Games Promotion/09-10 and certified copies of entire correspondence concerning Ogilvy & Mather Pvt. Ltd. w.r.t.

creating animated Digital Doordarshan character and 30 event vignettes for Commonwealth Games.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both parties are present and heard. The appellant is represented by Shri Vikram Ahuja, President, M/s Ogilvy & Mather Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Gaurav Sarin, Advocate. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.09.2013, seeking the above information. CPIO (Sports) vide reply dated 11.10.2013 denied information invoking exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that the subject matter of information being sought is under investigation and disclosure of information/records would impede the process of investigation. The FAA vide order dated 26.12.2013 upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny information u/s 8(1) (h) & 8(1)(g) of the rti act and observed that the relevant records contain internal notings and decision making process on the issue, which is the subject matter of investigation, the disclosure of which at this stage of ongoing investigation, would impede the process of investigation. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.

The appellant stated that w.r.t. another RTI application, he had received the noting portion of the said file but the correspondence part has not been provided to him till date. He further stated that the case pertains to civil claim relating to non-payment of dues raised by him for services rendered to Doordarshan/Prasar Bharti in 2010. He averred that the allegation of delay in service provided was false and disclosure of the correspondence part of the said file would demonstrate the falsity of this allegation by the respondent authority. He stated that the exemption sought by the public authority is wholly unjustified and non-applicable, rather the exemption under section 8(1)(h) is clearly not applicable in the instant case. The Section 8(1) (h) uses the term offender which in common parlance means a term constantly employed to indicate persons implicated in the Commission of a crime Therefore, evidently the application of section 8(1)(h) is not a valid ground for rejection of providing information to him as he is not an offender nor has committed any crime. The justification or rationale for denial of information is therefore malafide and contrary to law. Mere reference to or reliance by FAA on the advise by the Vigilance Dept. is insufficient in law to deny the information to him. Denial of information has to be based on definite reason which can be explained and merely refusing information by claiming exemption without any explanation is an unwarranted denial of citizens fundamental right. He drew attention of the Commission to various decisions of the High Court such as Union of India Vs. O.P. Nahar [WP(C) 3616/2012 and 405/2014], Adesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) 3543/2014], Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner [146 (2008) DLT 385], Union of India Vs. R.S. Khan, [173 (2010) DLT 680], wherein the Honble Court has observed that the holder of information can only withhold the information if, it is able to demonstrate that the information would impede the process of investigation or endanger the life or physical safety of any person and not just on the basis of mere apprehension.

The respondent stated that he is not concerned with the reply of the other CPIO as to what has been provided to the appellant and he only replied as per the provisions of the RTI Act. He further stated that the standard procedure has not been followed while processing, evaluating and costing of proposal received from a single agency and no committee was formed which could have carried out the processing of the proposal. He stated that there were some objections in audit also. He strongly objected to the disclosure of information as it will impede the process of ongoing investigation and there is also threat to the officials involved in the matter.

Interim Decision Notice: After hearing both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission directs the respondent to submit a written submission to the Commission (endorsing a copy to the appellant) regarding the pending inquiry(s) in the instant case, along with explanation as to how disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation as to invoke the exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and the present status of the case. The submission shall be submitted to the Commission within four weeks of receipt of this order. If the appellant desires, he may file his counter submission within two weeks of receipt of submission from the respondent.

The matter be placed before the Commission for final order after four weeks of receipt of the written submission from the respondent.

(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.

(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:- Central Public Information Officer under RTI Deputy Director, Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corp. of India), First Appellate Authority under RTI Additional Director General-(Sports), Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corp. of India), Directorate General Doordarshan, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Directorate General Doordarshan, Room-1022, Tower-B, Doordarshan Bhawan, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Central Public Information Officer under RTI Deputy Director, Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corp. of India), Directorate General Doordarshan, Prasar Bharati Secretariat, PTI Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

Shri Kapil Arora 6th Floor, Tower-A, Global Business Park, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).

Shri Gaurav Sarin Advocate & Principal Attorney, Sarin Associates, A-8, Sujan Singh Park (Adjacent to Hotel Ambassador), New Delhi-110003.