Central Information Commission
Shri. Vinay Kumar Jain vs Agricultural And Processed Food ... on 20 July, 2009
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4192/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000238
Dated, the 20th July, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Vinay Kumar Jain
Name of the Public Authority: Agricultural and Processed Food Products
Export Development Authority (APEDA)
i
Facts:
1. Both the parties were heard on 17/7/2009.
2. The Heritage Foundation, an NGO, and the APEDA the respondent, have submitted their respective proposals before the Registrar of the Geographical Indications of Goods for registration of Basmati Rice. The appellant, who is presently the Counsel for the Heritage Foundation, has asked for access to the records pertaining to the respondent's application before the Registrar of Geographical Indications of Goods. Specifically he has asked for the following information vide his application dated 26/11/2008:
(i) "Copies of entire note sheets/orders/notifications/circulars maintained in APEDA about the registration of Geographical Indications of Basmati.
(ii) Copy of the material collected and available for Basmati GI application.
(iii) Copy of the GI application if any, filed for GI registration of Basmati.
(iv) Details and copy of the notification if any issued empowering APEDA to apply for GI of Basmati.
(v) Copy of the memorandum and Bye Laws of Basmati Export Development Foundation having Chairman APEDA as its Head and details of its registration as Society.
i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1
(vi) Details of Funds available and utilized for protection/registration of Basmati.
(vii) Copy of the complete file along with note sheet maintained for empanelment of Law Firm/Lawyers for GI registration."
3. The CPIO refused to provide the information on the ground that the information sought for by the appellant constitutes the basis and foundation for the intellectual property claimed by the respondent, APEDA, in its GI application. Further, the contents of the GI application cannot be made public until the same has been advertised in the GI Journal, as per the accepted procedure.
4. In response to the appellant's first appeal, the Appellate Authority has furnished a detailed point-wise response and claimed exemption from the disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(d) and 11 of the Act.
5. In the course of hearing, the appellant in his written and oral submissions has stated as under:
• The respondent has furnished partial information while the remaining information has been refused to him on the ground that the appellant is representing as lawyer of the Heritage Foundation, an applicant for GI of Basmati rice. The contention of the respondent that the information if disclosed would be mis-used is misleading and therefore not acceptable to him.
• The desired information is not exempt u/s 8(1)(d) of the Act and therefore the appellant is entitled to get the information as a citizen.
• The CPIO's statement that the disclosure of information would adversely affect the competitiveness of the respondent vis-à-vis the Heritage Foundation, the rival applicant for registration of Basmati Rice as GI, lacks justification.
6. The respondent has argued that:
• The appellant is undeniably an advocate for a competing party i.e. Heritage Foundation, and he is seeking information with a view to gaining unfair competitive advantage for a competitor, which is contrary to the proclaimed larger interest.
• The appellant has sought for information for promotion of his personal and professional interest at the costs of all the stakeholders on whose behalf the respondent has taken up the matter with the Registrar of the GI of Goods.2
• The information sought for by the appellant relate to intellectual property held by APEDA, the disclosure of which would adversely affect the fate of the pending application made by APEDA before the GI Registry, Chennai, for registration in respect of Basmati Rice.
• The APEDA represents the interests of all farmers, traders, millers, exporters and all other stakeholders of Basmati Rice and is thus competent to hold the relevant Intellectual property rights on behalf of all the stakeholders.
Decision:
7. The Heritage Foundation and the APEDA have separately submitted their proposals for registration of Basmati Rice under the provisions of the Geographical Indications of Goods Act. The appellant, an advocate, who is representing the case of the Heritage Foundation before the Registry of GI Goods has asked for access to complete records and files containing the details of applications submitted by the respondent before the Registrar of Geographical Indications of Goods, Chennai. The appellant has argued that he has sought the details of the applications in his individual capacity as a citizen of the country and has no intentions to mis-use the information of the respondent.
8. The respondent has refused to furnish the information u/s 8(1)(d) and 11 of the Act, on the following grounds:
• The disclosure of the requested information would harm the competitive position, as the appellant might use the information to promote the interest of his client, the Heritage Foundation;
• The details of application contain information relating to third parties, mainly the contents of agreements between the respondent and its legal advisors; and • The disclosure of information is not in the public interest, since the respondent is seeking registration of Basmati Rice for all the stakeholders.
9. Until the application of the respondent is disposed of by the Registrar of Geographical Indications of Goods, the disclosure of information is not in the larger public interest as the respondent is pursuing the matter relating to the registration of Basmati on behalf of all the stakeholders - farmers, traders, millers, exporters, etc. Not only the competitive position of the respondent would be compromised but it would also result in violation of the accepted guidelines that the relevant material would be published in GI Journal at appropriate stage.
10. In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Appellate Authority to claim exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(d) and 11 of the Act is justified and therefore upheld.
311. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. Vinay Kumar Jain, Advocate, 605, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi - 110 054.
2. Sh. A.S. Rawat, GM & CPIO, Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, 3rd floor, NCUI Building, 3 Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi - 110 016.
3. Sh. S. Dave, Appellate Authority, Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, 3rd floor, NCUI Building, 3 Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi - 110 016 ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 4