Disclosure of purchase price & quantity of rubber plants, plants in plastic cup etc denied u/s 8(1)(d) claiming it would reveal the margin of profit - the third party who supplied the said raw materials also objected to the disclosure - CIC: denial upheld

ORDER

1. The appellant is present for the hearing. The respondent was represented by Shri Ajit Kumar (CPIO) & Soni Kumar (FAA).

2. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 5.7.2012 addressed to PIO, Pamba Rubbers Ltd. seeking the following information:

“1. In addition to those produced in the company Rubbers Nursery, how many Rubber Plants in Polybag, plants in plastic cup and Rubber Stump were purchased from outside sources. If purchased, how much quantity and at what rates were purchased and from where? Details of places of origin and owners of nursery be furnished.

2. If quotations were invited, how many were received and details regarding address be given. Whether lowest quotation was accepted, if not what were other considerations. Who were the members of scrutiny committee of quotations, their names and positions be made available.”

3. The CPIO replied as under vide reply dated 31.7.2012:

“Details of Rubber plants purchased from outside sources cannot be disclosed due to the reason that it is commercial secret and have competitive characters of business. And hence it has protection not to disclose under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. Also the third party has informed that the information is secret under section ii. Quality in respect of growth, timing of delivery etc. have been considered. Scrutiny was conducted by company officials and Rubbers Board Experts. Rate of purchase cannot be disclosed, because it is against the interest of third party. Therefore, it is not possible to furnish those information.”

4. The appellant filed first appeal dated 21.8.2012. The first appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO vide order dated 18.9.2012. The appellant submits vide his second appeal that the statement that the information asked for will be against the business interest of third party is neither substantiated nor the identity of third party is disclosed. The appellant submits that the information sought is not related to third party and that even details like furniture to an office, rent paid etc. are to be made available under the law.

5. The respondent has 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. 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; states that “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.”

6. The respondent has filed written submissions dated 15.10.2013, part of which is being reproduced as under:

“The Company runs a block rubber factory, which produces block rubber using natural scrap rubber as the raw material. The Company also undertake trading activities like:

i) Collection of rubber latex from small rubber growers and provides better farm gate price and prevents exploitation from intermediaries.

ii) Trading of agricultural inputs

iii) Production and trading of rubber plants (Planting Material, quality and reasonable price is based on the guidelines of the Rubber Board).

The Company conducts yearly internal and statutory audit in addition to the audit by C & AG. Yearly AGM us conducted and the balance sheet and accounts are got approved in the General Body. The Company is running at heavy loss due to power problem,, inadequate availability of raw-material, old machinery and stiff competition in the field. Company sustains about 90 labourers and employees and this company is their source of livelihood. The margin derived out of the trading activities including rubber plants is the source of income for the company. The company is not getting any financial support from the Govt. for the wages of employees and trading activities. Income is self generated by trading activities. The company faces tough competition from private rubber plants dealers and rubber nursery owners always try to destroy the company for their benefit. ………………… ………………………… …………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………  Sri Abraham Kodinji an out sider to the company had enquired about the details of plants purchased and sold by the company under RTI Act on 23.4.2012 including the details of annual stock of plants kept by the company as on 1.4.2012. The Public Information Officer furnished the details of the rubber plants sold, variety, number of plants sold and sale price. But the purchase price and connected details of plants being trade secrets are not revealed. If the purchase price of plants are revealed are revealed it will be forcing the company to reveal the margin/profit derived out of the business. The margin is to be revealed among the company circle and need not be published to the outsiders. The private rubber plants traders and vendors are having stiff competition with the company, and they make profit out of it and will be detrimental to the business. Moreover the third party (the agency which supplied plants to the company) disagreed to reveal the purchase price as it is affecting their competitiveness. Again it is a violation of agreement with the company and the third party. Annual stock of plants is also a commercial secret, if published is detrimental to the business of the company as our opponents in the filed may exploit the data for their benefit…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. . The committee structure is revealed, but the name of persons forming the committee are withheld, since it being a pure administrative matter having not much larger public interest………………………………………………… It may also be noted that by publishing the quotation rate the opponents in field will get the purchase price of plants, and we assume it is also a tactics to know the purchase price of plants indirectly.”

7. The Commission finds merit in the submissions of the respondent with respect to the point that disclosure of purchase price and quantity of rubber plants, plants in plastic cup etc will harm the competitive position of the respondent in view of the conditions of market, availability of raw materials etc and also that disclosure of such information would reveal the margin profit of the respondent company. Furthermore, the third party, i.e. who supplied the said raw materials etc. to the respondent has also objected to the disclosure of the price at which these materials were supplied to the respondent as stated by the respondent. The application of 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 RTI is upheld with regard to point no. (1), however, the names of scrutiny committee and their positions shall be provided to the appellant within one week from the receipt of this order.

Sushma Singh

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr Abraham Kodinji v. Pampa Rubbers Ltd. in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000827