CIC: The documents sought by the Appellant are documents of commercial bid, the agreement & bank guarantee both of which are not exempt; Technical bid may not be provided if it is not available in public domain
17 Sep, 2018Information sought:
The Appellant sought information in the context of annual contract for supply of Dry Provisions to BVY(MB) for period of 2016-17 in terms of copy of tender notice, if any, published; copy of technical and commercial bid alongwith supporting documents; copy of file notings; copy of minutes of relevant committee meetings etc.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Capt Sanjay Kumar, CPIO, HQ Western Naval Command, Mumbai and Lt M. Gyanendra Singh, Asstt. Base Victualling officer & APIO, Mumbai present through VC.
CPIO submitted that available information on para 1 of the RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant. While on para 2 of the RTI Application, information was denied 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 RTI Act as information pertaining to technical bid includes commercial confidence of third party firms and all vendors have objected to the disclosure.
Further, for para 3 of RTI Application, the relevant documents have been submitted for perusal. CPIO furthermore stated that entire tender/bidding process has been made online since last year and all documents of tender/bid are available online and can be accessed by general public without the consent of bidders.
Decision
Commission observes that the denial of information on para 2 of the RTI Application is only partially appropriate as it is not the case that the referred tender was open on the date of reply so as to hamper the commercial confidence of bidders. The documents pertaining to technical bid may not be provided if it is not available in public domain as technical specifications have a continuing relevance to commercial confidence and trade secret of the third party firms.
The other documents sought by the Appellant are documents of commercial bid, the agreement and bank guarantee both of which are not covered by the exemption of 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 RTI Act. Commission directs the CPIO to provide available information sought on para 2 of the RTI Application except for the technical bid documents.
As regards, para 3 & 4 of the RTI Application the documents submitted for Commission’s perusal shall be sent to the Appellant. The above information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report of the same be duly sent to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Prasad Ramchandra Joshi v. CPIO, Base Victualling Yard, Colabba, Mumbai-400005. File No. : CIC/INAVY/A/2017/603501/SD, Date of Decision: 26/07/2018