DGFT: The File contains representations from many third parties which amount to confidential information & disclosure would harm their competitive position - CIC perused the file and directed partial disclosure applying severability under section 10
1 Aug, 2018Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 29.01.2016 sought examination/inspection of File no. 01/94/180/165/AM 12/PC-4 and photocopies of noting and other documents pertaining to notification no 31 dated 01.08.2013 and public notice no 35 dated 30.10.2013. The CPIO replied on 12.02.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 25.02.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)’s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 23.06.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Representative of the appellant Shri R.D. Tyagi, Advocate
Respondent : Shri Dilip Kumar, Deputy Director General cum CPIO, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 12.02.2016. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed. The representative of appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent. On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that respondent CPIO had claimed exemption under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, which is not applicable in this case. On being asked from the respondent authority why section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; was applicable in this case, the respondent CPIO during the hearing submitted that File no. 01/94/180/165/AM 12/PC-4 contains representations/suggestions from many third parties which amount to confidential information and the same cannot be disclosed to the appellant as the same would harm the competitive position of these third parties.
During the hearing the CPIO showed complete records relating to the sought for information. After perusing the file the Commission came to the conclusion that the documents in the file contain notings on other issues as well apart from the notings and correspondence related to notification no 31 dated 01.08.2013 and public notice no 35 dated 30.10.2013. Thus the contents of the above mentioned file are partly disclosable. Hence, a parawise check was applied. At the outset it was noted that notesheets were not disclosable entirely in all cases but certain texts contained in the note pages only can be disclosed after taking precautions u/s 10 of the RTI Act as stated above.
It was also noted by the Commission that page nos 16 to 24 of the above mentioned file pertain to notification no 31 dated 01.08.2013 and among these pages, page no 17 & 18 are completely disclosable, for page nos. 16,19,20,21,22,23 & 24, information can be provided after restricting the name(s), designation(s) and identities of officers who had appended their remarks on the file. The relevant pages from the above said file pertaining to public notice no 35 dated 30.10.2013 start from page no. 32 to page no. 38, among these pages, page no. 32 is completely disclosable but information on page nos 33,34,35,36,37 & 38 can be provided after restricting the name(s), designation(s) and identities of officers who had appended their remarks on the file u/s 10 of the RTI Act.
With regard to other pages of the said file, certain other issues had been dealt with that had no connection with the subject matter of the above stated RTI application and thus the same cannot be disclosed. The Commission during inspection of the file also noted that page nos. 124-132 from the correspondence side pertain to the notification no 31 dated 01.08.2013. However, it included comments, suggestions and representations from many agencies against the aforesaid notification which cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The Commission notes that the information sought could not be provided to the appellant as it involved several inputs form the concerned third parties disclosing their internal working system and their possible drawbacks after implementation of the said notification. The same cannot be disclosed to any outside entity, and if the same is ordered to be disclosed, the competitive position of these parties could be jeopardised.
The CPIO is directed to note that information as mentioned above is to be disclosed. While furnishing the sought for information to the appellant, the CPIO shall mask names of officers making comments/notings so as not to disclose their identities to the appellant in the present case. The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of its receipt by the concerned respondent.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya]
Information Commissioner
Citation: Piyus Thakkar v. Directorate General of Foreign Trade in File No: CIC/DGOFT/A/2017/124705, Date of hearing: 27.06.2018