A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Appellant sought information regarding the date on which a postal order has been encashed by Jhansi Development Authority - PIO: Information is not available - CIC: Reply does not contain any reference to the record retention policy; Provide revised reply

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Information regarding the decision by the Registration Committee on the subject of indigenous manufacture of Emamectin Benzoate by M/s Insecticides (India ) Ltd. was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: Provide a copy of the agenda of certain meetings

14 Jan, 2016

Facts

This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 20.6.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eight points regarding the decision by the Registration Committee of the Respondents on the subject of indigenous manufacture of Emamectin Benzoate by M/s Insecticides (India ) Ltd. The CPIO responded on 19.7.2013 and denied the information on the ground that it pertained to a third party. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 8.11.2013. In his order dated 2.12.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 25.1.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 31.1.2014.

Hearing on 17.2.2015

2. The matter came before us on 17.2.2015. Advocate Ankit Virmani, speaking on behalf of the Appellant, stated that under Section 5 of the Insecticides Act, the Central Government Constitutes a Registration Committee. One of the functions of this committee is to register insecticides in accordance with the process laid down in the Act. An application was made by the company, M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. for indigenous manufacture of Emamectin Benzoate. The information sought by the Appellant concerns the above process. Advocate Virmani further stated that a proviso to Section 9 (3) of the Insecticides Act states that if the committee is of the opinion that the precautions claimed by the applicant as being sufficient to ensure safety of human beings or animals are not such as can be easily observed or that notwithstanding the observance of such precautions, the use of the insecticide involves serious risk to human beings or animals, it may refuse to register the insecticides. He submitted that since insecticides registered through this process can have an impact on public health, the matter is also one of larger public interest and it is important that the registration process is transparent and open to public scrutiny. Advocate Virmani added that the Appellant does not need information concerning the data submitted by the third party, but concerning the registration process followed by the public authority.

3. The Respondents submitted that the agenda of the meetings of the Registration Committee is confidential and all aspects concerning safety of the insecticides are thoroughly checked. They further submitted that it would be difficult to provide the information by severing the data concerning field trial and that inferences concerning the data could also be drawn from the opinions expressed by their officers during the registration process. Advocate Virmani stated that under sub section (5) of Section 19, the onus to prove that denial of request for information was justified is on the CPIO.

4. We also have a letter dated 13.2.2015 from M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd., the third party in this case, stating that as per the Insecticides Act, 1968, under Section 9 (3), they have to generate data on various scientific parameters as per the guidelines. This process involves a lot of time, energy of scientific personnel and money to the tune of Rs. 45 crores. They have further stated that they carried out the above exercise and spent substantial amount of money in getting the data generated. According to them, they have asked the Respondents to maintain the confidentiality of data /research work done by them and not share the same with any person. They have prayed to the Commission not to permit disclosure of the data submitted by them during the registration process to the Respondents. In this context, they have cited Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.

5. Since the data submitted by M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. would be scattered through the documents, whose copies have been sought by the Appellant and since the Respondents submitted that providing the information, by severing the portion concerning such data, would be difficult, we decided to study the relevant documents and directed the Respondents, vide our order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000490 dated 3.3.2015, to produce the same in the Commission’s office on 17.3.2015. Dr. A. N. Singh, Deputy Director appeared before us along with the relevant documents on the above date.

6. Pursuant to our above mentioned order dated 3.3.2015, Advocate Virmani has filed written submissions dated 17.3.2015 on behalf of the Appellant. He has stated that the documents sought at points No. 5 and 6 of the RTI application would not contain / involve any data generated by M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. and must be furnished to the Appellant. He has further stated that the submission of the Respondents that the data cannot be severed from the information sought and that inferences concerning the data can also be drawn from the opinions expressed by the Respondents’ officials is not correct and that any reference to the data generated by M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd., if confidential in nature, can be severed. He has also stated that the minutes of the 333rd meeting of the Registration Committee, where the decision was taken to grant registration, are already in the public domain. The agenda items, opinions, file notings etc. of the Registration Committee are part of the decision making process. These shed light on the views of the Registration Committee on efficacy and safety of the insecticide in question. Safety of humans and animals is an overriding and overarching public interest inherent in the registration process under Section 9 (3) and 9 (4) of the Insecticides Act. Therefore, such information must be disclosed in public interest and to ensure transparent process of registration.

7. We have considered the submissions made by all the parties. It is clear that the data generated by M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. and submitted to the Registration Committee for registration of their product is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed to third parties. There is always a possibility of the competitors of the company using such data, thereby harming the commercial interests and competitive position of the company. The representative of the Appellant has referred to the aspects of transparency and public interest because of the impact that the insecticide can have on public health. However, in our view, this does not justify revelation of the data generated by M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. at considerable cost. It is also noted that the representative of the Appellant stated during the hearing on 17.2.2015 that the Appellant does not need the data submitted by M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd., but information regarding the registration process that was followed by the public authority. At the same time, there is need for transparency in respect of such information concerning the registration process as does not entail revelation of the data.

8. Having perused the relevant documents, we are of the view that copies of the following documents can be provided to the Appellant, after applying the severability clause, as necessary, under Section 10 of the RTI Act, to exclude the information pertaining to the data:

(a) Copy of agenda Item No. 6.1 of 333rd meeting (only first page being the chemistry agenda note)reference point 1 of the RTI application.

(b) Agenda Item 2.3 of 335th meeting (letter dated 7.1.2013 written by the Respondents to M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. for presentation for consideration of registration) point 3 of the RTI application.

9. With regard to point No. 2 of the RTI application seeking agenda item No. 1.0 of 334th meeting, it is confirmation of minutes of 333rd meeting and contains no agenda item.

10. With regard to points No. 5 and 6 regarding copies of all appeals, representations, revision petitions and complaints made against grant of registration by third parties, we note that such information and information concerning decision taken on the same cannot be provided without following the procedure laid down in Section 11 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to follow the procedure laid down in Section 11 of the RTI Act in respect of such information and take a decision regarding provision of the same to the Appellant.

11. Points No. 7 and 8 of the RTI application seek file notings, deliberations and comments made during the process of registration. On perusal of the relevant documents, we note that they contain elaborate information concerning the data submitted by M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. Therefore, the information in response to these points cannot be disclosed.

12. We will take a final decision on disclosure of the information mentioned in paragraph 8 above after giving an opportunity to the third party, M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. to make a submission, if any, on the issue. Accordingly, this matter will be heard again on 30 th April 2015 at 2.15 p.m . at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Dlehi110066. The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this order, immediately on its receipt, by registered post to M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd., informing them that in case they wish to make a submission, they should be present during the hearing on 30.4.2015. The CPIO is further directed to bring with him the copies of the documents, mentioned in paragraph 8 above, during the next hearing.

Hearing on 30.4.2015

13. The matter came up again today. Advocate Rajesh Aggarwal submitted written submissions dated 30.4.2015 on behalf of M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd. These have been taken on record. Advocate Aggarwal handed over a copy each of the written submissions to Advocate Ankit Virmani, the representative of the Appellant and Shri Hariom Miglani, the representative of the Respondents.

14. Speaking on behalf of the Respondents with reference to paragraph 8 of our interim order dated 26.3.2015, Shri Hariom Miglani, Senior Law Officer stated that even after application of the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act, the documents mentioned at (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 8 of the interim order would contain vital information concerning the third party.

15. Advocate Ankit Virmani stated that the Appellant would need time to study the written submissions of M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd., of which a copy was handed over to him during the hearing. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 13 th July, 2015 at 2.15 p.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Dlehi110066.

The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this order, immediately on its receipt, by registered post to M/s Insecticides (India) Ltd., informing them that in case they wish to make a submission, they should be present during the next hearing on 13.7.2015. In case any party makes written submissions to the Commission, it should ensure that copies of the same reach the remaining two parties at least ten days before the next hearing on 13.7.2015.

16. The CPIO is also directed to appear before us along with copies of the documents, mentioned in paragraph 8 above, at 3.00 p.m. on 16.6.2015 in our office at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Dlehi110066.

Hearing on 13.7.2015

17. The matter came up again today. The Respondents submitted that as per the directive contained in paragraph 15 of our interim order dated 30.4.2015, a copy of the said order was made available to the third party, M/s Insecticides (India) Limited on 31.5.2015.

18. On 16.6.2015, S/Shri Hariom Miglani and Dipankar Bhattacharya had appeared before us along with copies of the documents, mentioned at paragraph 8 (a), (b) and (c), for our perusal.

19. Speaking on behalf of the Appellant, Advocate Ankit Virmani reiterated that the Appellant is not interested in getting the data submitted by M/s Insecticides (India) Limited, but only information concerning the decision making process.

20. The representatives of the Respondents submitted that on reexamination of the documents mentioned at paragraph 8 (a), (b) and (c), they have no objection to the Commission’s observation in paragraph 8, particularly since only the first page of the agenda item No. 6.1 of 333rd meeting is sought to be disclosed.

21. No one was present at the hearing to represent M/s Insecticides (India) Limited. In their written submissions dated 30.4.2015, mentioned in paragraph 13, they have stated that no information concerning the data of M/s Insecticides (India) Limited be supplied to the Appellant. They have also stated that the relevant documents be shown to M/s Insecticides (India) Limited for reference and examination, regarding which the information is sought. In the above context, we note that we have ourselves come to the conclusion in paragraph 7 above that the data generated by M/s Insecticides (India) Limited and submitted to the Respondents for registration of their product is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed to third parties. The observation made by us in paragraph 8 takes the above into account. Therefore, we see no need to show the copies of the relevant documents to M/s Insecticides (India) Limited, particularly since they have chosen not to be present for the hearing today.

22. In the light of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant copies of the following documents, after applying the severability clause, as necessary, under Section 10 of the RTI Act, to exclude the information pertaining to the data:

(a) Copy of agenda Item No. 6.1 of 333rd meeting (only first page being the chemistry agenda note)reference point 1 of the RTI application.

The CPIO should comply with our above directive within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of cost.

23. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.

24. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sharat Sabharwal)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Raju Chaudhary v. Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000490

Information regarding the decision by the Registration Committee on the subject of indigenous manufacture of Emamectin Benzoate by M/s Insecticides (India ) Ltd. was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: Provide a copy of the agenda of certain meetings

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.