Central Information Commission
V.V.Mineral vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 9 October, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No : CIC/MOCMI/A/2017/119878
In the matter of:
S.Vaikundarajan
...Third Party
Vs.
The CPIO/Dy. Development Commissioner
Office of the Development Commissioner Admn
Office Building, MEPZ, Special Economic Zone,
National Highway - 45, Tambaram, Chennai - 600045.
...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 11.11.2016
CPIO reply : 24.10.2016
First Appeal : 13.11.2016
FAA Order : 01.12.2016
Second Appeal : 15.03.2017
Date of hearing : 13.07.2018, 25.09.2018
Facts:
The third party objected vide letter dated 11.11.2016 to the disclosing of information related to their SEZ unit to Shri Dayadevadoss. The CPIO replied to the abovesaid objection letter vide letter dated 24.10.2016. The third party again objected vide letter dated 13.11.2016 to the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.12.2016 directed the CPIO to furnish the sought for information to the applicant i.e Shri Dayadevadoss after 1 the expiry of the stipulated period available for the appellant to go on appeal before the CIC against this decision.
The third party filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 15.03.2017. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order
Appellant : Shri K.S. Mahadevan along with Ms. Swati Bansal,
Advocates (third party)
Respondent : Smt Gulzar Begum,
Deputy Commissioner cum CPIO,
Office of the Development Commissioner
During the hearing, the third party, i.e. in this case the appellant, objected to the disclosing of the sought for information pertaining to his firm to Shri Dayadevadoss, the appellant in a related RTI case.
In the absence of the original RTI application filed by Shri Dayadevadoss (the subject matter of this case), the Commission was constrained to adjourn the case.
The registry of this bench is directed to fix another date for hearing and to ensure that the respondent CPIO is present invariably on the next date of hearing.
The CPIO, Smt Gulzar Begum is directed to send a copy of the RTI application filed by Shri Dayadevadoss through e-mail at [email protected] to the Commission urgently.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Final Order : 25.09.2018
Appellant : Present, Advocate Shri Deva Vratanand
Respondent : Smt. R.Gulzar Begum,
CPIO,
Office of the Development Commissioner,
Chennai.
2
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO, Smt. R.Gulzar Begum submitted that in compliance with the interim order dated 30.07.2018, she sent a copy of the RTI application filed by Shri Daya Devadas to the Commission earlier.
The counsel for the third party (appellant) in this case submitted that the sought for information should not be disclosed.
On perusal of the RTI application dated 29.09.2016 submitted by Shri Daya Devadas it was noted by the Commission that the following information was sought by the appellant in the RTI application dated 11.11.2016:
1. "Copies of the correspondences that respondent have received from the Ministry of Industries and Commerce related to the complaints made by our Federation and others on 100% EOUs in Tamil Nadu.
2. Copies of the parawise comments received from the 100% EOUs and SEZs for the 2 letters referred under reference 1 & 2."
The CPIO also submitted a written statement in which she submitted that the second appeal dated 19.12.2016 filed by M/s V.V Mineral is against the order of the 1st Appellate Authority dated 01.12.2016.
She submitted that parawise comments furnished by the EOUs contained third party information, Notices u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act 2005 were issued on 06.10.2016 to eleven Export Oriented Units (EOUs) including the appellant in this case dealing with minerals informing the parties that the CPIO intends to supply para wise comments furnished by them to the Development Commissioner earlier, to the RTI applicant. They were called upon to make their submissions in writing within 10 days as to whether the information sought by the applicant in his letter dated 29.09.2016 can be furnished to him or not. They were also informed that as per Sec 19 of the RTI Act they may prefer an appeal to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days.
3M/S V.V Minerals, the appellant in their letter dated 11.11.2016 objected to the proposed furnishing of the sought for information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO vide letter dated 24.10.2016 furnished the information sought for at Sl(a) to the RTI applicant. The RTI applicant was also informed that it had been decided to issue further notices to the third parties u/s 11(3) of the RTI Act to decide whether information as sought for under Sl (b) can be provided to him or not.
The CPIO vide notice dated 24.10.2016 informed the third party viz., M/s V.V Mineral that examination of the para wise comments furnished by it does not show up any fact/information which if disclosed can jeopardise the commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property of the third party i.e. M/S V.V Minerals. Therefore, the CPIO stated that it did not find any reason to deny to furnish information to the RTI applicant in regard to the correspondence between M/S V.V Minerals and the respondent authority in this case. M/s V.V Minerals made an appeal to the First Appellate Authority by virtue of their letter dated 13.11.2016 which was received on 17.11.2016 by the FAA.
The CPIO in his letter dated 30.11.2016 informed the RTI applicant that the third parties viz, M/s V.V Minerals, M/s Transworld Garnet and M/s Indian Ocean Garnet Sands Company had preferred appeal against CPIO's letter dated 24.10.2016.
Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, M/s V.V Minerals, Tirunelveli made an appeal to the First Appellate Authority vide their letter dated 13.11.2016 received on 17.11.2016. The First Appellate Authority in its order dated 01.12.2016 observed that the parawise comments furnished by the appellant in response to the letters of the Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries the copies of which are now being asked by the RTI applicant were examined. It was found by the FAA that the para wise reply given by the appellant vide letter dated 23.09.2016 to the respondent authority did not 4 contain any data or statistics or production flow chart or drawings or formulae or any other fact that can be categorised as commercially sensitive/confidential involving trade secret/ intellectual property right etc. In view of the above, the First Appellate Authority directed the CPIO to furnish the sought for information to the RTI applicant immediately after the expiry of the stipulated period available for the appellant to go on appeal before the Second Appellate Authority against its decision.
The V.V Mineral filed second appeal on 15.03.2017 before the Central Information Commission by challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dated 1.12.2016.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the information sought in para 2 of the said RTI application is related to Export Oriented Units (EOUs) based in the said SEZ (Special Economic Zone). The sought for information pertaining to the third party in this case i.e. M/s. V.V.Mineral was also present during the hearing before the CIC.
The information sought for by the 3rd party, i.e. Sh Daya Devadas pertained to the appellant. The appellant during the hearing expressed strong objection against the proposed disclosure of the information pertaining to them. The Commission notes that as the information sought for pertains to the appellant and as the appellant in this case i.e. M/S V.V Minerals is strongly against such proposed disclosure, the information sought for should be considered as exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent in the present case had taken a view that the letters from all the other EOUs including those from M/s. V.V. Mineral contained no information having importance from the commercial or any other angle. However, as the appellant strongly disapproved of the proposal for disclosing information sought in regard to the appellant's firm, the Commission is duty bound to consider the information sought as exempted u/s 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
In view of this, the Commission is appreciative of the fact and decides that this information pertaining to the appellant i.e V.V Mineral (Appellant) is 5 to be exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act read with Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Commission does not find any public interest involved in this case, especially as the responses from the other EOUs have already been provided to the information seeker i.e. Shri Dhaya Devadas. Mere absence/non disclosure of one firm's response to the Development Commissioner in connection with same complaint to the 3rd party concerned, Sh. Dayadevadas will not make any material difference in the present case.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date 6