Documents regarding goods exported were denied u/s 8(1)(d) to a partner of the firm which subsequently converted into a Pvt. Ltd. company wherein applicant is one of the Directors - CIC: Provide information free of cost after verifying Partnership Deed

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2022 seeking the following information:

“Subject: Information under RTI Act, 2005 in respect of Allahabad Tannery, 99/85-A, Jajmau Road, Kanpur-208010.

I was a partner of the firm M/S Allahabad Tannery and engaged in exports. The said firm was subsequently converted into a company named M/S Allahabad Tannery Pvt. Ltd. wherein applicant is one of the Directors.

I request for supply of following information and documents in respect of the goods exported (As detailed in Annexure) by M/S Allandad Tannery:

i. Inspection report of the Customs at the time of allowing exports.

ii. All other documents regarding clearance of the export consignments.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.06.2022 stating as under:

“The information sought is exempt from disclosure 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, 2005.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2022. FAA’s order, dated 28.09.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by Rahul Thukral through intra-video conference.

Respondent: Not present.

The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the denial of the information citing 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 is unfathomable as the Appellant is one of the Directors of the averred firm and has every right to access the said information. In support of the Appellant’s stake in the firm, the attention of the bench was invited to a copy of the partnership deed signed in the year 2007 enclosed with the Second Appeal wherein the name of the Appellant figures at Serial No.3 of the list of Partners with equal share holding pattern with the first two partners.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the FAA upheld the denial of the information by the CPIO on the grounds that the Appellant neither availed of the opportunity of personal hearing nor submitted any documentary proof of holding any rights in the averred firm. Pertinently so, there is nothing on record to show that the Appellant furnished the documentary proof submitted at the Second Appeal stage to the CPIO or the FAA at any instance, hence the denial of the information cannot be called into question.

Nonetheless, now in view of the submissions made by the Rep. of the Appellant and considering the documents on record in the Second Appeal, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the matter after verifying the averred Partnership Deed and other related documents enclosed with the Second Appeal, copy of which is attached herewith and provide the available information to the Appellant free of cost.

The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

Further, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The CPIO is hereby directed to send a proper written explanation to this effect to the Commission within 7 days of the receipt of this order, failing which, stricter action may be initiated in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Kamram Rahman v. Office of The Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo Export), CIC/CCCDZ/A/2022/155732; Date of Decision: 21/08/2023