O R D E R

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information pertaining to 59 importers and desired the Registration Certificate Numbers issued to them for import of cosmetics in India as per the Central Drug Standard Control Organization Notification dated 19.05.2000, Registration date and Expiry date and the Cosmetic Brand, Variant, items, etc for which the Registration Number was issued, etc.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 03.07.2017 provided the details of 15 importers out of the 59 importers to whom the Registration Certificate had been granted. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 01.08.2017, stated that the information sought was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar, CPIO & DDC (I), Mr. Vijay Chandankar, ADC (I), Mr. S. P. N. Singh, DI and Mr. Abhishek Chawardol, DI;

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Siddharth, Network Engineer NIC studio at Belapur confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent re-iterated the reply of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that all available information relating to the Registration Certificate granted in hardcopy/ offline mode was provided with regard to 15 importers. As regards the details of remaining importers, it was stated that the same could be accessed online on their website since the registration was granted through online mode. With regard to the remaining information, it was stated that the FAA vide its order dated 01.08.2017 had decided that the same pertained to specific details of registered importers which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, consent of the concerned Third Parties was sought at the First Appeal stage which was rejected by them. During the hearing, it was also conveyed that no larger public interest warranting disclosure of information was justified by the Appellant who was misusing RTI mechanism as a tool for extracting commercial information for his vested interests. In support of their contention, the Respondent further presented a newspaper clipping alleging that the Appellant was arrested for extortion.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent during the hearing, wherein while providing a detailed point wise response to the contention raised by the Appellant in the Second Appeal, it was stated that the Public Authority acted reasonably and diligently with a bonafide intent and did not intend to hide any information sought by the Appellant.

The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:

“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:

“(j) right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........”

In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC

497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:

35..... “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public