In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001735
CIC/AD/A/2010/001736
CIC/AD/A/2010/001737
Date of Hearing : January 3, 2011
Date of Decision : January 25 , 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Amarpal Singh
C/o Shri Uttam Singh
H.No.S636
Street No.5
School Block
Shakarpur
Delhi 110 092
Appellant - Present along with Shri Surendra Pokhi
Respondent
The Public Information Officer
O/o Registrar of Newspapers for India
West Block8, Wing No.2
R.K.Puram
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri S.D. Sarkar, CPIO & Asst. Press Registrar and Shri R.K. Sharma, S.O
Third Party
Shri Anil Narendra
Managing Director
Vir Arjun Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Pratap Bhawan
5, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Represented by: Shri Ashish Rai, Advocate
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
_______________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The information sought by the Appellant deals with trade secrets like circulation details, schemes
employed to promote sales etc. are information which fall under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005 and
hence the same are exempt from disclosure.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001735
CIC/AD/A/2010/001736
CIC/AD/A/2010/001737
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed 3 RTI Applications (2 RTI applications dated 25.06.2010 and 1 RTI application
dated 19.06.2010) with the PIO, RNI, Delhi seeking information with regard to circulation details
of Vir Arjun Newspapers Pvt. Ltd as to how the circulation was determined. The PIO replied on
13.07.2010 for one RTI application and on 09.08.2010 for 2 other RTI applications providing
some information. Dissatisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an Appeal dated 02.08.2010 with
the Appellate Authority for one RTI application and 25.08.2010 for the other two replies. The
Appellate Authority replied on 08.09.2010 for one RTI application and for other two no reply was
furnished by the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved with the response, Applicant filed Second
Appeals dated 30.09.2010 before the CIC.
Hearing
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that all he wants is how the circulation details are
verified. The Respondents submitted that in view of the advertisement policy 2006, it is being
done by empanelled firms of Chartered Accountants, details whereof are available on the
website. He added that no verification is being done by the RNI now. With regard to point 1 of the
RTI application dated 19.06.2010, the Respondents submitted that no notice was issued. Shri
Ashish Rai representing the Third Party sought denial of information as disclosure of the said
information would tantamount to divulging of trade secret which will affect his client’s position in
the market.
3. After hearing the submissions made, the Commission verbally requested the Third Party to give
their written submissions why they feel the information should not be disclosed by 07.01.2011 to
the Commission with a copy each to the Applicant and the Respondents and the Respondents
and/or Applicant to give their comments on it to the Commission by 14.01.2011 with a copy each
to the Third Party and the Appellant and/or Respondents.
Decision
4. The Commission received a communication dated 07.01.2011 from the Third Party viz. the Vir
Arjun Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager Admn. stating that the Appellant alongwith his
two associates viz. Surendra Kumar Pokhriyal and Jai Bhagwan Sharma being retrenched
employees of the said newspaper, had been resorting to RTI questionnaire with ulterior malafide
motive and in order to blackmail and/or tarnish the image and reputation of the Third party as a
part of their personal vendetta. The Third Party contended that the Appellant alongwith his
associates sought information regarding the list of distributors, hawkers, bills and schemes
employed by the Third party with a view to blackmail the Third Party that the information will be
handed over to the competitor of the Third Party to cause loss in business. The Third Party
contends that the Appellant and his associates being hand in glove with the competitors of the
Third Party is trying to maliciously procure information which is of commercial confidence/trade
secret and cause harm to their competitive position. Hence, the Third Party prayed that such
information being exempt from disclosure under provisions of the Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act
2005, the appeal be dismissed and also that the Commission may direct the RNI, DAVP and
Ministry of Information that any such information pertaining to commercial confidence/trade secret
of the Third Party may not be disclosed to the Appellant and/or his associates.
5. The Appellant filed their counter arguments against the submissions of the Third Party stating that
the allegations of blackmailing etc are false and that the Appellant is merely trying to unearth the
misuse of public fund by the publishers in collusion with the officials of DAVP and RNI. The
Appellant leveled charges of siphoning of Provident Fund and ESI money deducted from the
salary/wages of the employees by the Publishers of M/s Vir Arjun Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., A J
Printers, D Prabhu & Co. regarding which a criminal case invoking Sections 406,409 and 418 IPC
had been registered against the Managing Director in 1997. The Appellant contended that the
details and machinery had been fabricated by the Third Party viz. the Publishers and submitted
before the RNI and DAVP in order to obtain higher rate of contract for advertisement. While the
Appellant agreed the Thirty Party’s contentions about the retrenchment of the Appellant and his
associates, the Appellant also submitted that the disclosure of the information will not adversely
affect the business of the Third Party since the newspapers of various publications are sold under
one roof at various sales centers.
6. This was followed by a rejoinder dated 15.01.2011 received from the Third Party wherein the
Third Party stated that all the allegations of the Appellant were totally irrelevant and that the
Appellant and his associates were misusing the various legal machineries only as an attempt to
malign the reputation of the Third Party to settle personal scores with the Third Party. It has
further been submitted by the Third party that the allegations of the Appellant about the collusion
between the Third Party and DAVP & RNI are baseless and hence have not been corroborated
by any documentary evidence to this effect. Furthermore, the Third Party confirmed that the
machinery and manpower used by them are capable to publish the volume of circulation as
declared by them. To the contention of the Appellant that disclosure of the information will not
adversely affect the business of the Third Party since the newspapers of various publications are
sold under one roof at various sales centers, the Third Party rebutted questioning that if the
information was available in the open market, then what was the need for the Appellant to seek
the same invoking provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The crux of the submission of the Third Party
was that the Appellant had been leveling false, incorrect and baseless allegations against the
Third Party without any corroborative or supporting evidence indicating any collusion or
malpractice at the end of the Third Party to malign and/or tarnish the goodwill of the Third Party.
The Appellant allegedly sought the commercially confidential information simply with the intention
of causing financial/commercial and/or business loss to the Third Party.
7. Upon perusal of all the documents submitted by the parties and considering all the arguments of
the parties, it is noted that it is beyond question that the information sought by the Appellant deals
with commercially sensitive and confidential information relating to the business of the Third
Party. These information can be misused to adversely affect the competitive position of the Third
Party. The Commission further observes that the Appellant has not been able to substantiate his
argument about public interest being the motive behind the seeking of the information. Also, the
fact that no collusion of the Third Party with the DAVP & RNI could also not been proved.
Accordingly, the Commission is of the opinion that the information sought by the Appellant
dealing with trade secrets like circulation details, schemes employed to promote sales etc. are
information which fall under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005 and hence the same are exempt
from disclosure.
8. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Amarpal Singh
C/o Shri Uttam Singh
H.No.S636
Street No.5
School Block
Shakarpur
Delhi 110 092
2. The Public Information Officer
O/o Registrar of Newspapers for India
West Block8, Wing No.2
R.K.Puram
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
O/o Registrar of Newspapers for India
West Block8, Wing No.2
R.K.Puram
New Delhi
4. Shri Anil Narendra
Managing Director
Vir Arjun Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Pratap Bhawan
5, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
5. Officer Incharge, NIC