Copies of complaints received by Forward Markets Commission against NCDEX, clarifications given by NCDEX and decisions taken - information claiming as voluminous extending over 7 years - CIC: respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the records

Copies of complaints received by Forward Markets Commission against NCDEX, clarifications given by NCDEX and decisions taken by the Commission - information was denied claiming it was voluminous extending for a period of 7 years and pertains to a large number of parties - appellant claimed that FMC is in collusion with NCDEX because of which the warehouse service provider has been able to shield himself by walking away from the contract specifications - CIC directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the records

O R D E R

RTI application

1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 20.4.2012 seeking copies of complaints received by the Commission against National Commodity & Derivatives Exchange Ltd. (NCDEX) during the period from 1.1.2005 till the date of application, replies/clarifications given by NCDEX and copies of the decisions taken by the Commission. The CPIO denied the information on 11.5.2012 under section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. and section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & 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. 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.

2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 31.5.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, after receiving the objection of the third party (NCDEX) and after hearing the appellant, upheld the reply given by CPIO, on 5.7.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 30.7.2012 in second appeal.

Hearing

3. The appellant participated in the hearing personally. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 20.4.2012 and stated that he sought information on three points from the respondent, but the respondent, without any application of mind, had denied him the information on grounds of third party information and voluminous information by citing section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. and section 8(1)(d), section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & 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. 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.

5. The appellant stated that he wanted inspection of all the complaints received by FMC against NCDEX along with documents attached with the complaints and replies filed by NCDEX along with the decisions taken by FMC.

6. The respondent stated that the information being sought by the appellant is of such large volume taking into account that the appellant is seeking information for a period of 7 years and more about the various complaints received by the Forward Market Commission (FMC) relating to NCDEX, which is the exchange platform provided for buyers and sellers of commodities. The respondent stated that the complaints and documents received by the Commission relating to NCDEX for a period of 7 years runs into a large volume, being a vast set of information which pertains to a large number of parties.

7. The respondent stated that they want to help the appellant by providing the relevant information if he tells the exact nature and facts of the complaint.

8. The respondent further stated that the system, which the appellant is complaining against, pertains to three nodal points of the system, i.e., the appellant who is the purchaser of the commodity, the exchange which in this case is NCDEX, i.e., the platform or medium for the exchange, and the warehouse service provider. The respondent stated that this is a matter where rather than going into volumes of information, which would be disproportionate to the resources of the Commission, the need today is to focus on the specific matter of the appellant.

9. The appellant stated that his matter pertains to a situation where he had purchased one lakh bags of potatoes of a certain specification, but because of the collusion of the NCDEX with the warehouse service provider, the agreement had been violated and he had to suffer monetary loss. The appellant stated that the FMC is in collusion with the NCDEX because of which the warehouse service provider has been able to shield himself by walking away from the contract specifications. The appellant stated that he made a complaint about his case to NCDEX on 3.10.2011 and to the FMC on 20.10.2011. Decision

10. The respondent is directed to enable the appellant to inspect and get pertinent photo copies, within 30 days of this order, of the documents regarding the appellant’s specific case summarised in para 9 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commission

Citation: Shri Purshottam Nagpal v. Ministry of Consumer Affairs in Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001074