Central Information Commission
Raman Garg vs Ministry Of Food Processing Industries on 16 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOFPI/A/2022/633005
Raman Garg ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Food Processing
Industries (MoFPI), RTI Cell,
Panchsheel Bhawan, August
Kranti Marg, New Delhi-110049. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/05/2023
Date of Decision : 10/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 18/04/2022
First appeal filed on : 18/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 17/05/2022
Second Appeal dated : 16/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"Please provide the copy of contract between Sai communication agency and Ministry of Food processing industries (hereinafter referred as MOFPI) for the year 2016 to 2020.1
Please provide a copy of the contract between Akal Information systems and MOFPI for the year 2020 to till date.
Please provide the copy of the registration certificate as mandated u/s 7(1) of the contract labour act, 1970."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 18.04.2022 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is to inform that as per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005, "information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party" has been exempted from disclosure. Therefore, the information relating to company shall not be disclosed to the public or individual as the contract, staff and other documents submitted along with application contains business/ trade/ financial information including personal information of the promoters and directors."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 17.05.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO with the following observations -
"...As Appellate Authority, matter was again sent to CPIO for necessary reconsideration. Accordingly, CPIO sent mails to M/s Sai Communication Agency and M/s Akal Information Systems on 09.05.2022 seeking their permission, whether the necessary information may be shared with the third party keeping in view the Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Both the above firms disagreed for sharing any type of information. Accordingly, CPIO has informed today about the latest developments. Thus, it is seen that the information sought by the applicant under RTI Act cannot be disclosed keeping in view the Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005..."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of alleged wrong denial of information by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.2
Respondent: Tual Za Kuan, U.S. & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant vide letter dated Nil sought exemption from participating in the hearing and prayed the Commission to decide his case on merits.
The CPIO submitted that on points no. 1 & 2, the Appellant has sought for the copy of the Contract executed between the M/s Sai Communication & M/s Akal Information Systems with MoFPI for the averred period, since this includes information of commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party; and thus, stands exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. For point no. 3, he again reiterated the denial of information in terms of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act and added that the FAA as Appellate Authority, again sent the matter to CPIO for necessary reconsideration. Accordingly, he emailed to M/s Sai Communication Agency and M/s Akal Information Systems on 09.05.2022 seeking their permission, whether the necessary information may be shared with the third party keeping in view the Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Both the above firms disagreed for sharing any type of information. Accordingly, the CPIO informed today about the latest developments.
To a query from the Commission regarding the contents of information involved in Registration certificate, he explained that registration certificate only includes the details that whether the company is registered as per the provisions of the CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 and abide by said laws.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of the CPIO finds that denial of the information by the CPIO in response to points no. 1 & 2 of RTI Application under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is appropriate. In this regard, relevant portion of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act is reproduced below for ready reference -
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;3
A bare perusal of aforesaid exemption clause and also considering the fact that the primary essence of information sought is detailed information pertaining to contract entered into by the abovementioned agency/organizations with the MoFPI which in itself reflects that disclosure of entire contents of contracts as sought for may perhaps, harm the business interests of such organization vis-à-vis MoFPI; it therefore, attracts the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. In addition to it, the Commission also cannot lose sight of the fact that details of Contract terms in toto also entails invasion of privacy of third parties which attracts the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, 4 disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the denial of information by the CPIO against point 3 under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act does not find to be reasonable as the nature of information sought in itself depicts that disclosure of such generic details as contained in the registration certificate would not in any way harm the business interests and attracts the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the registration certificate which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant at point no. 3.
The above said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5