Information about the manufacturers of Potassium Chloride in India
The appellant sought information regarding quantity and value of Potassium Chloride manufactured and the duty paid by 39 manufacturers of Potassium Chloride in India for the year 2008-09. The PIO denied the information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality 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; and as personal information under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The FAA upheld the order of the PIO.
The appellant’s case was earlier remitted by the Commission to the FAA with the direction to dispose of the appeal after hearing the appellant and consulting the third-parties and, after receiving the assistance of the Registrar of Companies. In compliance with the Commission’s direction the FAA informed the appellant that as per statistics available, there were four manufacturers who have filed returns for the manufacture of Potassium Chloride. Out of these four manufacturers, three manufacturers had no objection to disclose their information which was provided to the appellant. As M/s. Lupin Ltd had objected to disclose their information to the appellant, it was denied u/s 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant stated in his second appeal that out of 39 manufacturers of Potassium Chloride, he has not been provided the names of 36 manufacturers and that there cannot be any objection to providing the name of the manufacturers.
View of CIC
The Commission held that requisite information has been provided to the appellant as the names of the four parties/manufacturers who have manufactured Potassium Chloride in India during the year 2008-09 have been provided.
Citation: Shri S. Yasar Arafath v. Directorate General of Systems, Customs & Central Excise in file no. CIC/AT/A/2010/001045/SS
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/32
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission