Information pertaining to projects awarded by NHAI in which provision for Dispute Review Board was persisting was sought by a research scholar - CIC examined the case records; Exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is inappropriate
12 Dec, 2019Information sought:
The Appellant sought information pertaining to number of projects awarded by NHAI in which provision for Dispute Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF) was persisting; names of the members appointed/nominated by NHAI to DRBF alongwith the contract winning party name and the contractor nominee and details of their remuneration as well as number of disputes referred/number of disputes resolved.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Bharat Khanna, Manager(Legal) & CPIO and C.S. Chauhan, Advocate, National Highways Authority of India, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi present in person.
At the outset, Commission remarked that the information sought is generic in nature and the same is outside the purview of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; of the RTI Act. Commission offered the Appellant to restrict his requirement so that requisite information can be provided. Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO.
CPIO submitted that there is Dispute Review Board not Dispute Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF) as claimed/mentioned by the Appellant. He further submitted that the information sought is exempt 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; and 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. Appellant interjected to state that he is a Research Scholar and his primary intent is to know the functioning of Dispute Review Board for academical purposes.
Decision
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that the exemption claimed by the CPIO 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; and 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the 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 available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act is inappropriate. Relevant details/specifications of the contracts are to be published in the public domain after finalization and denying the same under the pretext of commercial confidence/fiduciary capacity is far-fetched. Commission on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, directs the CPIO to send a note on the functioning/mechanism of averred Dispute Review Board as available in their records to the Appellant with a copy to the Commission within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Information Commissioner
Citation: R S Sravan Kumar v. CPIO, National Highways Authority of India in File No : CIC/NHAIN/A/2018/618884, Date of Decision: 21/11/2019