CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
D- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000817/SS
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
(Through Video Conferencing)
Appellant : Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas
Respondent : Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Indian Bureau
of Mines, Chennai
Date of Decision : 14.07.2011
BACKGROUND
OF THE CASE:
1. The present hearing was scheduled before the Commission on 06/07/2011 at
1210 hours and was heard via Video Conferencing. The Appellant, Dr.
Devadas was present in person at the NIC Centre, Chennai and the
Respondent Public Authority was represented by the Assistant Controller of
Mines & CPIO, Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), Chennai who was present at
the NIC Centre, Chennai and the Controller of Mines (SZ) & FAA, IBM,
Bengaluru who was present at the NIC Centre, Chennai and Bengaluru
respectively.
2. The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 14/04/2010 had sought certain
information in relation to and in connection with Mining Plans from the
Assistant Controller of Mines & CPIO, Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),
Chennai. The RTI Application contained 11 (eleven) Questions out of which
only the information pertaining to Question Nos. 1 and 3 was not provided
by the CPIO to the Appellant vide his Order dated 05/05/2010.
3. Aggrieved by the CPIO’s Order, the Appellant preferred first appeal dated
24/05/2010 to the Controller of Mines (SZ) & FAA, Indian Bureau of
Mines, Bengaluru seeking information under Question Nos. 1 and 3 of his
RTI Application. The FAA disposed off the first appeal vide his Order dated
14/07/2010 stating that the information sought was exempted under clause
(d) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
4. The Appellant has therefore approached the Commission in second appeal
dated 13/08/2010.
DECISION NOTICE:
5. We have carefully perused through the material placed on record before us
by both the parties and have considered the respective submissions made by
them before us.
6. Information sought under Question Nos. 1 and 3 of the Appellant’s RTI
Application is the core subject-matter of the present appeal and hence, the
two questions have been reproduced below for the sake of clarity:
“1.) Xerox copies of the relevant portion of the mining lease
wise Mining Plan details containing the year wise production
schedules providing that the transport permits issued for
dispatch of minerals tallies with the details of year wise
production shown in the above said enclosed statement during
the period 1994 – 95 to November 2009.
3.) Xerox copy of the reply given by the lessees for the violation
notice issued to them”
7. The Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), on behalf of the Central Government, is
given the responsibility of giving permission to the mine-owners/lessees for
carrying out mining operation in the designated mines. IBM’s role extends to
examining a variety of concerns such as safety, environmental standards,
programme of mining to keep a tab on the utilization of the mineral
resources with a view to ensure conservation of minerals, water-supply,
drainage and so on. A model Mining Plan, has an index comprising a host of
information such as the name and address of the prospecting agency, details
of the mining area, period of mining lease, infrastructure details, geology
and reserves, Mining Schedule/Plan and the methodology including site
services, environmental impact assessment and so on.
8. On the face of it, it seems obvious that all these details contained in the
Mining Plan are eminently public information, or at least these are relevant
for the knowledge of the public about whether a certain mining operation
has been carried out according to the instructions given by the Indian Bureau
of Mines, who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that certain
standards are maintained while lessees carry out mining operations.
9. Similarly, there are certain parts of the Mining Plan comprising certain
details about the finances, flow of funds, share of partners, etc., which can
be said to comprise the private information relating to commercial
confidence of the third-party. But most other information contained in the
Mining Plan cannot be said to be entirely personal to the third-parties, or
assuming the characteristics of those parties’ commercial confidence. It is
necessary to compartmentalize information contained in the mining plan
which had a public persona and cannot be said to belong to the domain of
commercial confidence of the third-party(ies).
10. The touchstone for such determination is whether the requested information
relates to maintaining mining standards, safety of mines and minerals,
environment, public safety, etc. because if it does, then such information
cannot be exempted under clause (d) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
11. In furtherance of the above analysis, it is apposite to mention the
Commission’s Order dated 16/07/2010 in File
No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000114, 115 & 119 wherein it has been held as follows:
“2. […] It was brought to our notice that the CIC had recently
disposed of a batch of appeals filed by several Appellants
including the present one in which the main issue was the
disclosure liability of Mining Plans. In his order dated 7 June
2010, while disposing of 13 different appeals, the CIC, after
extensive consultation with the Ministry of Mines had held that
the following three parts of the Mining Plan could be disclosed
without any prejudice to the commercial and competitiveinterest of the third party (Mining Lease applicants):
(i) ‘General information’, and ‘Location and accessibility’ in
Chapter 1 & 2 in introductory Notes of the Mining Plan;
(ii) ‘Mine Drainage’, ‘Skating of Mineral rejects and Disposal
of waste’, ‘Use of Mineral’ and ‘Other information’ in
Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively of the Part ‘A’ of the
Mining Plan;
(iii)’Environmental Management Plan’ in Chapter 11 of Part
‘B’ of the Mining Plan.”
[paragraph 5 of the above order]
3. We do not find any particular reason to differ from the above
findings.”
12. Needless to say, in the background of widespread controversies raging in the
country regarding the illegal mining by private lease owners, it is important
that the exact area of the lease, the quantum of mineral to be extracted, the
environmental implications of mining and the plan for rehabilitation of
displaced persons as well as the environment, etc. should be placed in the
public domain so that the mining activity is carried out strictly according to
the approved plan.
13. In light of the above observations and reasoning, we now revert back to the
information sought under the RTI Application in the present second appeal.
14. So far as Question No.1 of the RTI Application is concerned, the portion of
the Mining Plan containing the year wise production schedules cannot be
said to contain details about the finances, flow of funds, share of partners,
etc., which can be said to comprise the private information relating to
commercial confidence of the third-party. The total production of minerals
in an year as per a Mining Plan can clearly be disclosed in light of the
Commission’s Order (supra) dated 16/07/2010 in File
No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000114, 115 & 119. Such information can in fact be
tallied with the transport permits issued for dispatch of such minerals in a
given year and therefore, help bring transparency and accountability in the
Mining business of the country. Such information as sought under Question
No.1 of the RTI Application can by no stretch of imagination be considered
to attract any clause of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
15. So far as Question No.3 of the RTI Application is concerned, i.e. the copy of
the reply given by the lessees for the violation notice issued to them, the
Commission is not satisfied with the reply tendered by the FAA vide its
Order dated 14/07/2010. Merely stating that the information pertains to third
party and that the third party has not consented to for supplying of
information is not sufficient to refuse disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of
the RTI Act. For Clause (d) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act to be attracted,
there must be some harm that may possibly be caused to the competitive
position of the concerned third party if such information is disclosed.
16. Now, it has come to our notice that copies of various ‘violation-cum-show
cause notices’ which have been issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines on several occasions to Mine lessees are
available readily on their official web portal https://ibm.nic.in. Thus, the
contents of these notices are in the public domain already. The reasoning
given by the FAA in refusing the information under Question No.3 is
tenuous and falls flat in light of the above fact. It is so because if the Indian
Bureau of Mines is regularly furnishing the copies of various ‘violation-
cum-show cause notices’ issued by it on their official website, containing the
details of the Mine lessees against whom such notices are issued, then there
is no reason why the reply tendered by such lessees to the Indian Bureau of
Mines can be considered as ‘commercially confidential’ information.
17. The reply given by the Mining lessees for the violation notice issued to
them by the Indian Bureau of Mines can hardly be assumed to harm the
competitive position of such lessees given the fact that the ‘violation-cum-
show cause notices’ issued to them are in any case available in the public
domain. Perhaps, the competitive reputation of such lessees was more at
stake when the ‘violation-cum-show cause notices’ issued to them were
made available to the public at large to see. If the Indian Bureau of Mines
does not believe that doing so would affect the competitive position or
commercial confidence of such lessees, then there is no cogent reason why it
should adopt a parochial approach in seeking refuse under Section 8 (1) (d)
of the RTI Act while refusing to disclose the copy of the reply given by the
lessees for the violation notice issued to them.
18. The Commission is of the view that information sought under Question
Nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI Application does not fall under any of the
exemptions prescribed under the RTI Act. Hence, the Commission directs
the Assistant Controller of Mines & CPIO, Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),
Chennai to furnish the information sought by the Appellant under Question
Nos. 1 and 3 of his RTI Application to him within 15 days of receiving this
Order.
19. The Appeal is thus allowed.
Sushma Singh
Information Commissioner
Authenticated True Copies
K.K. Sharma
OSD & Deputy Registrar
Address of Parties:-
Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas,
Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries,
1A, Prasad Street, Seethapathy Nagar, Velachery,
Chennai – 600 042, India
The CPIO,
Ministry of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines,
C 4 A, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090
The Appellate Authority,
O/o the Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines,
No. 29, Industrial Suburb, Goraguntepalya,
Tumkur Road, Bangalore