Central Information Commission
Ms.Sumathichandrashekharan vs Agricultural And Processed Food ... on 29 May, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/902403 &
CIC/SS/A/2012/902404
Dated: 29.05.2013
Name of Appellant : Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran
Name of Respondent : Agricultural & Processed Food Products
Export Development Authority (APEDA)
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2013
ORDER
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present two identical appeals dated 3.6.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), New Delhi for not providing satisfactory information in reply to her two RTI-applications dated 17.12.2011 and 19.12.2011. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri A.K. Gupta, Director, Shri T. Sudhakar, DGM and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002403
2. The appellant has through her RTI application dated 19.12.2011 sought information as follows: "Please provide photocopy of the entire file pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India along with any other documents pertaining to the efforts to coordinate a joint-registration with 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/902403 & CIC/SS/A/2012/902404 Pakistan". The CPIO vide letter No. APEDA/RTI/ACT/296/2011-12 dated 18.1.2012 informed the appellant as follows: "The application filed by APEDA to register 'Basmati' as a geographical indication has been opposed by various parties representing competitive interests and the matter is pending before the Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai. As such the matter is subjudice and disclosure of any information in this behalf would affect the competitive positions of the stake holders on whose behalf the application has been filed. Hence disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act".
2.1. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. RTI/Act/Appeal/304/2011-12/6227 dated 21.2.2012 that the CPIO has denied the information not merely on the ground that the matter is subjudice but more importantly on the premise that disclosure of such information, held by APEDA on behalf of the stakeholders of Basmati rice, would affect the competitive positions of all such stakeholders. In other words, APEDA is representing the rights of the stakeholders in the geographical indication Basmati in various proceedings all over the world and these proceedings in particular, the pending geographical indication application in India, involve confidential and sensitive information. The FAA held that the disclosure of such information is exempted u/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002404
3. The appellant has through her RTI application dated 17.12.2011 sought information on the following three queries: "(1) Please provide photocopy of the entire file pertaining to the steps taken by APEDA to protect the Basmati trademark from becoming generic in the USA; (2) Please provide photocopy of the entire file pertaining to the steps taken by APEDA to protect the Basmati trademark in Pakistan; and (3) Please provide information pertaining to efforts initiated by APEDA in any other country to protect the basmati trademark". The CPIO vide his letter No. APEDA/RTI/Act/295 informed the appellant that APEDA successfully forced a surrender/revocation of several claims of a patent taken out 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/902403 & CIC/SS/A/2012/902404 in the US by Ricetec Inc, which sought to confer a monopoly upon Ricetec in the production and marketing of rice grains. The claims in the said patent would have interfered with the export of Basmati rice to the US. The full file pertaining to this information is available on the website of USPTO. Appointment of a watch agency for monitoring the trade mark registers worldwide including for the US for any third party attempted registration of the name Basmati or any deceptive variations thereof. Pursuant to the actions initiated by APEDA, several third parties in the US have provided undertakings to APEDA recognizing the reputation and goodwill of Basmati as a geographical indication originating from the Indian sub continent. Being commercial confidential information involving third parties, the information is exempted u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. APEDA's application to register Basmati as a geographical indication has been opposed by various parties including one from Pakistan. Further, there is a pending court proceeding in Pakistan involving the very same opponent and APEDA. As such these issues are subjudice and disclosure of information is exempted u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
3.1 Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. APEDA/RTI/Act/305/2011-12/6226 dated 21.2.2012 held that the CPIO did not deny information sought at Point No. 1 pertaining to the legal action taken by APEDA against the patent applied for by Ricetec Inc in the US. Instead, the CPIO informed the appellant to obtain such information from the website of the USPTO. On Point No. 2 the FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO stating that the undertakings entered into between APEDA and third parties involve confidential information of such third parties and as such cannot be disclosed u/s 11 of the RTI Act without the consent of such third parties. Further disclosure of such information would harm the competitive positions of these third parties, as well as those of the stakeholders of the intellectual property in the name of Basmati, whose interests APEDA is guarding as a custodian and trustee. On Point No. 2 the FAA held that the CPIO has denied information on the ground that the matter is subjudice but more 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/902403 & CIC/SS/A/2012/902404 importantly on the premise that disclosure of such information, held by APEDA on behalf of the stakeholders of Basmati rice, would affect the competitive positions of all such stakeholders. In other words, APEDA is representing the rights of the stakeholders in the geographical indication Basmati in various proceedings, all over the world and these proceedings in particular, the proceedings in Pakistan, involve commercially and politically sensitive information. Disclosure of such information could lead to unwarranted pub lic debate which in turn could prejudice or unduly influence the outcome of these proceedings.
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission is of the view that the information as sought for by the appellant, the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act and the appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest which warrants the disclosure of such information. The Commission finds no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar 5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/902403 & CIC/SS/A/2012/902404 Address of the parties:
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran, H-107, Yamuna Apartments, Alakhnanda, New Delhi-110019.
The CPIO, Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), 3rd Floor, NCUI Building, 3, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, (Opp. Asiad Village), New Delhi-110016.
The First Appellate Authority, Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), 3rd Floor, NCUI Building, 3, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, (Opp. Asiad Village), New Delhi-110016.