Copies of tender documents for procurement of Aluminum Phosphate was denied u/s section 8(1)(d) &(h) - Appellant: exemption sections irrelevant as the contract had already been awarded & the investigation was also over - CIC: inspection allowed
5 Feb, 2014ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 13.12.2011 under the RTI Act, seeking copies of tender documents for procurement of Aluminum Phosphate during 2000 to 2011, process of tender, terms and conditions, number of participants, rate quoted by the participants, minutes of meetings, details of security deposited, etc. CPIO transferred the application on 19.12.2011. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 09.02.2012. FAA vide order dated 21.03.2012 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 22.06.2012.
Hearing
2. Appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he was seeking copies of tender documents for procurement of Aluminum Phosphate during 2000 to 2011, process of tender, terms and conditions, number of participants, rate quoted by the participants, minutes of meetings, details of security deposited, etc.
3. Appellant stated that he was the power of attorney holder of a company which manufactured Aluminum Phosphate and was seeking the information on behalf of the company.
4. Appellant stated that he was seeking the information on the following points;
(a) copies of tender documents floated by FCI to procure Aluminium Phosphate for the period 2000 to 2011;
(b) process of tender, terms and conditions, rate quoted by the participants, negotiations, award of contract;
(c) minutes of meetings of FCI;
(d) security deposited and release of security deposits;
(e) correspondence between FCI and Central Warehousing Corporation and its agencies.
5. Appellant stated that he wasn’t aware that the CPIO had given a reply to his RTI application. Appellant stated that without furnishing a copy of the reply to him, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Appellant stated that the CPIO denied the information 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; 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; and section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act without any explanation.
6. Appellant stated that citing 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; 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 the RTI Act by the respondent had no relevance with the issue. Appellant stated that he was asking the information about old tenders which had already been over. Appellant stated that once the tender process had been over then then the information should be in the public domain, therefore there would not be any trade secret or confidentiality.
7. Appellant stated that 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act also could not be applied in the present case because as per the Act, the clause was meant for criminal proceedings. Appellant stated that in the present case investigation was done by DGCCI which had already been over.
8. Respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant 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; 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; and section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. Respondent stated that investigation was done by DGCCI that found various discrepancies leading to penalization of the manufacturers of Aluminum Phosphate. Respondent stated that during the pendency of the case the appellant filed the RTI application.
9. Respondent stated that in view of the pendency of the case and because the matter was subjudice, they could not provide the information to the appellant. Respondent stated that the appellant had no connection with the supplier and this would be third party information.
Decision
10. Respondent is directed to enable the appellant, within 30 days of this order, to inspect the relevant files as per the RTI application and provide photocopies. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anurag Naryan Parashar v. Food Corporation of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000339/05723