CIC: Respondent could not explain how the information sought, i.e., duration of contract, parameters of monitoring performance, penalties for non observance of terms, etc. would compromise trade secret, commercial confidence or intellectual property

ORDER

Facts

1. The appellant filed an application dated 29.11.2012 under the RTI Act seeking information regarding the details of hospitality service providers, details of process to award contract, copy of contract, security arrangements, etc. CPIO responded on 29.01.2013. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 13.03.2013. FAA vide order dated 29.05.2013 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Appellant filed this present appeal on 16.07.2013.

Hearing

2. Appellant and respondent were present before the Commission.

3. Appellant referred to the RTI application and stated that she was seeking information regarding the details of hospitality service provider, details of process to award contract, copy of contract, details of security, etc.

4. Appellant stated that she had received information on point no. 1, 2, and 4 of the RTI application but denied information on point 3 and 5 of the RTI application under section 8 (1)(d) and 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act. Appellant stated that in the FAA order dated 21.05.2013 it was stated that the contract related to third party and the said third party has written not to divulge any information to any other person. It was said that otherwise no larger public interest would be served by disclosing the said information and that security and safety of the passengers is a top priority for any commercial organisation that plans value added trips and disclosure of the same may endanger safety of the passengers.

5. Appellant stated that the details of contracts sought by her was a contract between the IRCTC and a party. IRCTC was a signatory as well as a party to the contract and also the holder of the information. Appellant stated that when a public authority has entered into an agreement with another party, this does not mean that the agreement pertains to a third party, hence section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act is not attracted. Appellant stated that IRCTC is a public sector enterprises using public money for its operations, therefore it is liable to disclose the information in public interest.

6. Appellant stated that the FAA order dated 21.05.2013 does not mention trade secret, commercial confidence or intellectual property, which is a pre condition for claiming exemption 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 the RTI Act.

7. Appellant cited the judgement of Delhi High Court AIR 2012 Delhi 39 Jamia Millia Islamia v/s Sh. Ikramuddin According to this, the act of entering into agreement with any other person/entity by public authority would be public activity, and that every citizen is entitled to know what terms of agreement/ settlement has been reached by public authority with any other entity or individual and that the information cannot be kept under wraps.

8. Appellant stated, regarding point 5 of the RTI application, that she did not seek any internal details of the security. She was seeking information about broad security measures being adopted by the IRCTC for promoting safety of passengers. Appellant stated that the respondent wrongly said that this would compromise the safety and security of passengers.

9. Respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was third party information and no public interest is involved. Respondent stated that they had initiated action under section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act but the concerned party objected to the disclosure of the information to any other person. Respondent submitted that the CPIO and FAA rightly denied the disclosure about the contract 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 the RTI Act.

10. It is clear from the hearing that the information sought by the appellant in point 3 of the RTI Act does not pertain to third party information. The IRCTC is a party in the contract and they are the information holder. The respondent could not explain how the information sought, i.e., duration of contract, parameters of monitoring performance, penalties for non observance of terms of contract, etc. would compromise trade secret, commercial confidence or intellectual property. Regarding the information sought in point 5 of the RTI application, the respondent did not explain how the disclosure of overall and general information would endanger the physical safety of any person.

Decision

11. Respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought on point 3 and 5 of the RTI application taking into account the discussion above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Upasna Sahni v. IRCTC in Decision No. CIC/BS/A/2013/002137/VS/09292