Details of the mining plans and Form H1 of the Mineral Concession Rules under RTI

Background

The appellant in two separate applications sought details of the Mining Plans and Form H1 of the Mineral Concession Rules in respect of a number of mines from the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the required information was third party information and was fiduciary in nature. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) endorsed the stand taken by the PIO in one of the applications stating that disclosable chapters of the Mining Plan had already been provided but the disclosure of remaining chapters of the Mining Plan would attract the 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; of the RTI Act. However, for the second application he directed the PIO to furnish some parts of the annual return (Form H1) to the appellant.

Proceedings

During the hearing, the appellant pleaded that the proviso to 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; and section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. of the Act covers the present case as the disclosure of sought information was in larger public interest. He also quoted a number of judgments passed by the Supreme Court and the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the past and stated that the decision of the FAA directing the PIO for part disclosure was contrary to the decision of the Commission and suffered from complete application of mind. The respondent submitted that a Mining Plan prepared by private parties contained detailed information which was a closely guarded secret which might be misused by the competitors and others to the detriment of the original party. No party involved in commercial transaction would ever want that the information given in confidence and trust to a competent authority to enable them to arrive at a decision to approve the Mining Plan should fall into the hands of competitors or other unconnected persons or organizations. Thus, the information requested by the appellant is not only commercial, but also involves exclusive Research & Development effort of the third party as well as the innovations in management techniques.

The appellant had also filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa in which orders were passed on December 21, 2011 and January 4, 2012 respectively. The appellant sought leave to withdraw the petition on the condition that the CIC be directed to dispose of the two appeals of the appellant expeditiously. The High Court accepting the plea dismissed the Writ as withdrawn and directed the Commission to hear and dispose of the appeals filed by the appellant as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the receipt of that order.

View of CIC

Referring to one of the cases mentioned by the appellant, the Commission observed that the information sought in one of the applications was very much similar to the case of Sh. D Dhaya Devadas (CIC/SM/A/2010/000114, 115 & 119) in which a conscious decision was taken to disclose only three parts of the Mining Plans without any prejudice to the commercial and competitive interest of the third party. The Commission further noted that the order passed by the FAA directing the PIO to provide the necessary information was on the lines indicated in the order passed by the Commission in the case of D Dhaya Devadas as referred to above. Regarding the second application, the Commission observed that most of the admissible information has been provided and directed the PIO to provide further information in relation production, dispatches and stocks. The Commission also pointed that in compliance with the directions of the High Court, the appeals were heard on April 12, 2012 and both the cases were disposed.

Comments

The pendency at the CIC level has been rising fast and the appellants have started approaching the High Court for an expeditious disposal of cases. This is not a good omen for RTI Act.

Citation: Mr. Dilip Timblo v. Indian Bureau of Mines in File No.CIC/SS/A/2012/000098 & 99