Central Information Commission
Mrc K Singhania vs Ministry Of Coal on 11 March, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002655
Dated: 11.3.2014
Name of the Appellant: Shri C.K Singhania
Name of the Public Authority: Ministry of Coal
Date of hearing: 20.2.2014
ORDER
1. The appellant was not present for the hearing. The respondent was represented by Shri S.K Shahi (Director) and Shri Sanjay Sahai (Under Secretary). The Sova Ispat Ltd (third party) was represented by Shri Buddy A. Ranganadhan (Adv), Shri. Shounik Mitra (Adv.) and Shri Nikunj Beriwal.
2. The present appeal is being heard in continuation of the interim order dated 3.2.2014 wherein following directions were issued:
"5. The Commission is of the veiw that neither the CPIO's order or first appellate authority's order explains how section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act is applicable, the respondent has merely quoted this section without any explanation. The CPIO is directed to file written submissions on or before 10.2.2014. Furthermore, the written submissions shall explain the matter in relation to the various submissions and points raised by the appellant in his first appeal as well. The CPIO is also directed to provide a copy of this order to Sova Ispat Ltd as well and Sova Ispat Ltd. may if it so desires attend the proceedings along with their submissions if any.
The appeal shall be listed within two weeks from the date of order."
3. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P No. 34095(W) of 2013 has been brought on record which is as under:
"Since it appears that the effective second appeal was filed before the Central Information Commission early in October 2013, WP No. 34095(W) of 2013 is disposed of by requesting the Commission to dispose such matter as expeditiously as the business of the Commission would permit and, preferably, within eight weeks of the date of communication of this order."
4. The present appeal is being heard in relation to RTI application dated 6.3.2013 addressed to CPIO, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi seeking the following information:
"a) Copy of the mining plan submitted by Sova Ispat Ltd in Ardhagram coal block located in Bankura Dist of WB for exploration and exploitation of coal."
5. The CPIO vide order dated 22.3.2013 denied the information under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed first appeal dated 11.4.2013 wherein he made various submissions, part of which is being reproduced below:
"The Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in one of its orders in the aforesaid writs, stated that there is enough reserves in the Ardhgram coal block to accomodate BSMMPL along with the leader, Sova Ispat Limited and the aforementioned third party andf therefore, the Ministry of Coal may consider granting such surplus reserve to the above writ and BSMMPL, at its own will. However, Sova Ispat Limited and the third party in their oppositions to the above writ and in apposition to certain other concerned writs,as filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, have stated that there is no such surplus reserve that can be allocated to BSMMPL. Therefore, the observation of the Hon'ble High Court to such extent becomes infructuous unless the Hon'ble Court is provided with documents evidencing the misleading and vexatious scehme of the certain governmental authorities and private parties.
It has come to the notice of BSMMPL vide the report of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India that the said Sova Ispat Limited in its mining plan has stated that the reserves of Ardhagram coal block is only 25.60 million tone whereas it appears from the minutes of the Screening Committee, the website of the Ministry of Coal, Government of India and several other documents that are on record in the aforesaid writs and other writs filed by BSMMPL that the geological reserve of the said Ardhagram coal block is much higher that what is stated by Sova Ispat Limited in its mining plan submitted with the relevant government authority. As a result thereof thereof, there is substantial prejudice being caused to BSMMPL in all the foresaid writ proceedings because of the misleading figures stated in the mining plan submitted by Sova Ispat Limited. ............................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................... The intent of the principle mining legislations being Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1973 and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, is to ensure that coal and other minerals are distributed in an equitable and fair manner. This very fundamental principle of the mining legislations has been violated by certain governmental authorities in collussion with other private parties, as a result of which, the said writs and other writs have been filed by BSMMPL. Coal being a scarce national resource, it is in the greatest public interest to ensiure that it is distributed equitably. Sub-section (2) of section 8 provides that informationn exempted under sub-section (1) can be disclosed if public interest in disclosure over weighs the harm to the protected interest. Assuming without admitting that the disclosure requisitioned is exempt under sub-section (1) of sub-section 8, it neverthless is entirely and squarely in public interest to disclose the same since non-disclosure shall only lead to national wealth being disposed in an arbitrary and irrational manner, being wholly also in violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the subject natural resources is valued at several hundreds if not thousands of crores. It is also submitted that, such is the larger public interest involved that the Central Bureau of Investigation, a premier investigating agency of our country, is conducting thorough enquiry in the entire process of allocation of coal blocks..................................................................................................................... ..........In the alternative, if your good self is still of the opinion that the information/disclosure being requisitioned cannot be shared for any reason, it is submitted that in terms of the provisions of section 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, only such information from the mining plan be shared which lay out reasons, grounds and methodology adopted for concluding that the geological reserve of the Ardhgram coal is only 25.600 million tonnes. In the light of the said section 10, your office can severe exempt disclosures and grant such records which do not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure. Since the information requisitioned is for the purposes of obtaining a statistic and methodology adopted for arriving at such statistic, there is no reason that such severed information shold be barred under section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
The first appellate authority vide order dated 9.7.2013 upheld the exemption under section 8 (1) (d).
6. The appellant has filed the second appeal on similar grounds. The respondent, Coal Ministry has filed their written submissions dated 14.2.2014 in compliiance of the interim order dated 3.2.2014, part of which is being reproduced as under:
" Ardhgram Coal block in the state of West Bengal was jointly allocated on 6.12.2007 to M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. as leader and M/s Jai Balaji Sponge Ltd. as an associate under Option-III to meet theri coal requirement of 21.6 million tonne and 4 million tonne respectively for their proposed sponge iron plants located in Bankura District, West Bengal and Burdwan District, West Bengal respectively subject to certain conditions..................................................................................... The Geological report of Ardhgram coal block was prepared by Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL) which was purchased by M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 9,51,09,037/- on 21.10.2008.
Mining plan of a coal block is a document which is prepared by the allocatee of a coal block through a Recognised Qualified Person (RQP) upon payment of a heavy amount by the allocatee of any coal block. Mining plan is a document which contains information relating to commercial confidence amd trade secret as it contains all the relevant information about coal block boundaries, geology, reserves, conceptual mining & site selection, method of work, coal handling arrangement, workshop and store, civil construction & water/power supply, safety & management, man power & OMS, major construction schedule & time schedules, use of mineral & mineral processing, environmental management plant and progressive & mineral processing. Mining plan of Ardhgram Coal Block was submitted by M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. which was placed before the Standing Committee constituted under the MMDR Act, 1957 under the Chjairmanship of Secretay (Coal) with Vice Chairman (Expert Member), Adviser (Project), Director (Tech.) and a representative ech of CMPDIL, Indian Bureau of Mines and Indian School of Mines. The same was approved by the Standing Committee vide letter no. 34011-23-2008.
However, the geological reserves of Ardhgram coal block have been estimated as 121.97 Mt. (proved 109.60 plus 12.37 indicated) and the approved mining plan of Ardhgram also confirms the above position."
7. The third party has also filed their written submissions part of which are being reproduced as under:
"The mining plan was prepared by us through a Recognised Qualified Person (RQP) on the basis of the Geological Report, which was purchased by us at a hefty cost of Rs. 9.51 crores from the Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL). ...............As a statutory requirement, the mining plan was submitted by us with the Ministry of coal for its approval which was granted on November 17, 2008. Thus, it is evident that the said mining plan is entirely our own private document, containing confidential and private information and trade secrets and its preperation had cost us more than Rs. 10 crores including the cost of purchasing the geological report. Hence, it would be unjust and inequitable to disclose such a document to any third party.
We would like to submits that the information sought by the applicant are informations containing matters of commercial confidence and trade secrets and the disclosure of which to the applicant would cause severe harm to us. As per section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, such information should not be disclosed unless a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. In support of our submission, we would like to report the following:
a. The information contained in the Mining plan are of commercial confidence and trade secrets, as it contains information relating to geol;ogy, reserves, conceptual mining and site selection, time wise schedule of use of mining area, method of work, ingreess and egress, open cast unit, coal handling arrangement, work shop & store, civil construction & water supply, power supply, manppower & OMS, major construction schedule and time schedule. Use of mineral & mineral processing and statements showing requirement of land, major plant & machinery and major mine development. Hence, it is obvious that the above information is of commercial confidence and trade secrets and disclosure of such information to the Applicant can cause severe harm and injury to us.
b. Harm to competitive position of third party. As the applicantcompany purpotedly claims itself to be a consortium of sponge iron manufacturers in West Bengal and as we are also a manufacturer of sponge iron, it is evident that the Applicant is a competitor and hence in a competitive position. Disclosure of such information relating to commercial confidence and trade secrets to the Applicant, being in a competitive position, may use these information, if provided to them, against us tocause interruption and impediments in operatiuon of coal block by several ways including but not limited to encorachment on the lands on which we plan to mine as per the approved mining plan.
c No larger public interests warrants the disclosure of this information. The applicant is a director of a private company, who has admittedly sought this information for the purpose of using such information for obtaining favorable order in the various writ proceedings filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, for obtaining allocation of the Ardhgram Coal Block in its favour. Admittedly the infromations are being sought, not for any public interest but for a purely private purpose of waging a private competitive battle against our company. Hence, the disclosure of this information will only serve the private commercial interest of the Applicant."
8. The issue of discloure liability in relation to mining plans has been examined by the Commission in various appeals earlier. In the order dated 14.7.2011 in file no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000817/SS the Commission has taken the following view:
" 9. Similarly, there are certain parts of the Mining Plan comprising certain details about the finances, flow of funds, share of partners, etc., which can be said to comprise the private information relating to commercial confidence of the third-party. But most other information contained in the Mining Plan cannot be said to be entirely personal to the third-parties, or assuming the characteristics of those parties' commercial confidence. It is necessary to compartmentalize information contained in the mining plan which had a public persona and cannot be said to belong to the domain of commercial confidence of the third-party(ies).
10. The touchstone for such determination is whether the requested information relates to maintaining mining standards, safety of mines and minerals, environment, public safety, etc. because if it does, then such information cannot be exempted under clause (d) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
11. In furtherance of the above analysis, it is apposite to mention the Commission's Order dated 16/07/2010 in File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000114, 115 & 119 wherein it has been held as follows:
"2. [...] It was brought to our notice that the CIC had recently disposed of a batch of appeals filed by several Appellants including the present one in which the main issue was the disclosure liability of Mining Plans. In his order dated 7 June 2010, while disposing of 13 different appeals, the CIC, after extensive consultation with the Ministry of Mines had held that the following three parts of the Mining Plan could be disclosed without any prejudice to the commercial and competitive interest of the third party (Mining Lease applicants):
(i) 'General information', and 'Location and accessibility' in Chapter 1 & 2 in introductory Notes of the Mining Plan;
(ii) 'Mine Drainage', 'Skating of Mineral rejects and Disposal of waste', 'Use of Mineral' and 'Other information' in Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively of the Part 'A' of the Mining Plan;
(iii)'Environmental Management Plan' in Chapter 11 of Part 'B' of the Mining Plan."
[paragraph 5 of the above order]
3. We do not find any particular reason to differ from the above findings."
12. Needless to say, in the background of widespread controversies raging in the country regarding the illegal mining by private lease owners, it is important that the exact area of the lease, the quantum of mineral to be extracted, the environmental implications of mining and the plan for rehabilitation of displaced persons as well as the environment, etc. should be placed in the public domain so that the mining activity is carried out strictly according to the approved plan."
9. The Commission finds no reason to differ from the previous decisions. In the present appeal before the Commisson the applicant has stressed mainly on the point of reserves of Ardhgram Coal Block. According to the applicant the reserves of the said coal block has not been correctly stated in the mining plan submitted by Sova Ispat Ltd. However, this question is not for determination before the Commission, but from the perusal of the submissions of the applicant, it is understood that he seeks to know the information particularly in relation to the geological reserves of the said coal block.
10 The Commission is of the view that the information regarding the geological reserves of a coal block is disclosable information. The appellant submits in his appeal reproduced at para (5) wherein the appellant stresses only on the information which lay out reasons, grounds and methodology adopted regarding the coal reserves of Ardhgram. The Commission hereby directs that the appellant shall be provided with that part of the mining plan which pertains to the reasons, grounds and methodology relating to the geological reserves of the Ardhgram Coal block.
Directions of the Commission shall be complied within ten days from the receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
D.C Singh (Dy. Registrar) Name & Address of Parties:
1. Appellant:
Mr C.K Singhania, Director, M/s Bengal Sponge Manufacturers Mining Pvt. Ltd., 3, Bysac Street , 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700007
2. Shri Sanjay Sahay, Under Secretary (CA-1) & CPIO Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
3. The Director & FAA, Ministry of Coal, Room No. 302-B, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110001 4 Sova Ispat Ltd.
EN 32, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 091