Central Information Commission
Mr.Parvez Shahid Qureshi vs Agricultural And Processed Food ... on 26 September, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No.305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in Tel No:26167931
Case No: CIC/SS/A/2013/000135
26 September, 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri P.S Qureshi, Mumbai
Name of Respondents : Agriculture & Processed Food
Product Export Development
Authority (APEDA), Delhi
Date of Hearing : 26.09.2013
ORDER
Shri P.S Qureshi hereinafter called the Appellant has filed the present appeal dated 30.11.2012 before the commission against the respondent namely Agriculture & Processed Food Product Export Development Authority (APEDA), Delhi. The Appellant was not present in the hearing and the RespondentCPIO Shri Tarun Bajaj (General Manager); FAAShri R.K Boyal (Director) and third party Shri D.B Sabharwal were present in the hearing.
2. The Appellant through the RTI application dated 13.09.2012 sought information regarding details and capacity of plants no: 20, 21, 23,36,66,81,119,121 & 139 as approved by APEDA.
3. CPIO vide letter no: RTI/ACT/371/201213/3442 dated 05.10.2012 replied as follows:
"This has reference to your letter dated 14.9.2012, received in APEDA on 24.9.2012, seeking information under RTI Act, 2005. It may be mentioned that details of plants and capacity approved by APEDA, is third party information and cannot be disclosed."
4. Aggrieved with the reply of CPIO Appellant filed a first appeal before the FAA in which an order has been passed by the FAA vide his order no: RTI/Appeal/389/2012 13/4228 dated 19.11.2012 as follows: "Reference your appeal dated nil to the Appellate Authority which was received in APEDA on 23.10.2012 requesting to provide information regarding capacities of APEDA approved meat processing plants set up by various private exporters. We have examined the appeal taking into consideration of relevant provisions of RTI Act, 2005, in particular section 8 (1) (d) of the Act, which says "information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information". Further Section 11 of the said Act stipulated that every information of trade or commercial activities of third party available with a public authority is"third party information". APEDA has also sought the views of All India Meat & Livestock Exporters Association (AIMLEA), of which majority of the meat exporters are the members, AIMLEA has objected to disclosure of information on the capacities of plants etc., which according to them can affect their commercial interest. In view of above, I agree to the views of the CPIO that this is a third party information which may not be disclosed as disclosure of such third party information will harm their competitive position. This is without prejudice to the fact that right to information under the act is only to the citizens of India. It does not make provisions for giving information on the legal entities such as trust etc."
5. Being aggrieved with the FAA order, Appellant filed a second appeal before the commission wherein appellant states that information has been wrongly denied by the CPIO u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. During hearing before the Commission, the CPIO submits that the information was rightly denied u/s 8 (1) (d) because it is in the nature of commercial confidence and trade secrets and the information if disclosed, can be wrongly used by the Appellant (competitor) against another competitor who is a leading exporter and who own and control all the plants which are mentioned in the RTI application of the Appellant. CPIO also submits that the disclosure of information regarding the capacity of the plants would harm the competitive position of that leading player who own and control all these plants. CPIO further submits that the disclosure of information regarding the capacity of the plant would mean disclosure of the technical details of the plants, like information regarding plant and machinery/equipment, utility, blasters, freezers, slaughter machines, lairage etc. The Capacity of the plants is in the certificate which is issued to the Exporter by the APEDA which contain all such information and which can be further shown by the Exporter to the Exporting country authorities, to the custom authorities and Animal Husbandry Department of respective States. CPIO also submits that the disclosure of information about the capacity of plant would also harm the industry in view of socioeconomic issues attached with it thereby affecting the growth of the largest meat exporting industry in the world. The Third party also submits that almost 95% of the meat exporters are the member of the All India Meat & Livestock Exporters Association (AIMLEA) and almost all the members have objected to disclosure of information on the capacities of plants etc., because according to them it can affect their commercial interest.
7. After hearing the submission of the CPIO and third party, the Commission observes that the RTI application of the Appellant is relating to the details and capacity of plants no: 20, 21, 23,36,66,81,119,121 & 139 as approved by APEDA. In this connection, the Commission is of the view that the information regarding the capacity of the plant is not merely an overall capacity in terms of area covered for storage of meat, land and buildings of the plants but having a crucial technical information/specifications in relation to the meat plants which could be in the nature of competitive advantage of a particular plant over the other plants. This information, if disclosed, may harm the competitive position of the plant owner over other plant owners. In this connection, the Commission is also of the view that the capacity of a meat plant is not merely 'capacity' but also contains technology details.
8. The Commission therefore finds no reason to intervene in the order of the Respondent in this regard.
9. With these observations the appeal is disposed of on the part of the commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(D.C Singh) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar To:
1. Shri Parvez Shahid Qureshi, 702, B Wing, Prem Mayusaran CHS Ltd., Bambedkar Road, OFF turner Road, Bandra Mumbai - 400050
2. The Dy. General Manager & CPIO, Agriculture & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, NCUI Building 3, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi 110016
3. The Director & Appellate Authority, Agriculture & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, NCUI Building 3, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi 110016