Information pertaining to a certain MOU about passport offices was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - Appellant: public interest involved as TCS has employed CMC to do the work & employees are working in substandard conditions - CIC: provide information

Information pertaining to a certain MOU signed about the operations of passport offices was denied u/s 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; - Appellant: public interest involved as TCS has employed another firm, i.e., CMC to do the work & the employees are working in substandard conditions - CIC: provide the information

ORDER

RTI application:

1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 05.07.2013 seeking information pertaining to a certain MOU signed about the operations of passport offices. The appellant filed his first appeal on 06.08.2013 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal on 17.09.2013 with the Commission.

Hearing:

2. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.

3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 05.07.2013 and stated that his RTI application had 4 points. The appellant said that this information should have been provided by the respondent, but the respondent has denied the information without reason.

4. The respondent stated that this information has been denied by the CPIO on 24.07.2013 and the reason for denying this information was that the MOU was an agreement with TCS (Tata Consultative Services) which was a private sector firm and hence it was felt that this information was in the nature of confidential information and that disclosure would adversely affect the competitive position of the entity and hence this 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 the RTI Act.

5. The appellant stated that he is seeking this information in public interest taking into account the low level conditions of service of those manning the passport offices. The appellant said that what has actually happened is that the TCS has employed another firm, i.e., CMC to do the work and the employees that are working there are being paid very low salaries and without any future prospects. The appellant also said that he wanted to know what were the terms and conditions to understand whether any law was being violated because the arrangements were working to the detriment of the employees as they were working in conditions that were substandard. The appellant stated that it was in this light that he wanted this information as this would reveal the formal background under which the low level of working conditions were being administered.

6. The information sought in the RTI application must be provided in the public interest.

Decision:

7. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in the RTI application along with copies of the pertinent documents. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri S.J. Kamble v. SO(COVRTI), M/o External Affairs  in Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2013/001344/VS/07710