Central Information Commission
Mr. R Y Kutumbe vs Ministry Of Mines on 13 June, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000297
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 13/06/2013
Date of decision : 13/06/2013
Name of the Appellant : Sh. R Y Kutumbe,
62, East High Court Road, New
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 10
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Indian Bureau of Mines,
Nagpur Regional Office, Block B & C, 6th
Floor, Indira Bhawan, IBM HQ, Civil Lines,
Nagpur 1
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Dr. A.K. Goshal was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both the parties.
3. The Appellant had wanted the copy of the letter the Indian Bureau of Mines( IBM) had written to a mining entity on 28 February 2011 and the reply given by that entity. Besides, he had also wanted to know the details of those mines which were located on revenue or forest land in the Nagpur region. The CPIO, after consulting the mining entity concerned, declined to disclose the information stating that the third party had objection to the disclosure of the information. The Appellant had appealed against this order. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the decision of the CPIO.
4. The Appellant submitted that he should get the information he had asked for. The respondent, however, argued that since the third party had not given his consent for the disclosure of the information, it should not be disclosed.
5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. In this case, the IBM had issued a letter to M/s Alatge Stone Crushing Industries apparently for some violations. The company had replied to that. It is not clear why the reply given by the company to a show cause notice should be considered by the CPIO to be third party information under section 11(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The entire exchange between the IBM and M/s Alatge Stone Crushing Industries is a part of a statutory exercise. The explanation given to the show cause notice is neither a confidential document nor a personal one; it is furnished in response to a statutory show cause notice. Therefore, the CPIO, in our view, was not right in treating it as third party information within the meaning of section 11(1) of the RTI Act and in consulting him. Besides, even if he had consulted the party concerned, he was not bound to be guided by its views; he was expected to exercise his own mind and come to a conclusion. Instead, the CPIO decided to deny the information simply because the party concerned did not give its consent. We should not forget that the proviso to section 11(1) clearly states that even third party information should be disclosed in larger public interest except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law. In any case, the CPIO's order is completely silent on any such aspect. Mining activity has evoked considerable concerns from the public in recent years for a variety of reasons including its potential for environmental pollution and illegal exploitation of public resources. Therefore, there is also considerable public interest involved in disclosure of such information.
6. Thus, keeping the above in view, we direct the CPIO to disclose to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order the attested copy of the reply given by M/s Alatge Stone Crushing Industries in response to their show cause notice dated 28 February 2011 along with whatever enclosures. However, if the CPIO decides not to disclose it because it contains any trade or commercial secrets protected by law, he shall pass a speaking order.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar