Information regarding bidders for SBI - CIC: Appellant has been provided with the available information; CPIO has also explained the unviability of the information related to the remaining bidders during the hearing, which leaves no scope of intervention
24 Jul, 2024
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2022 seeking information ‘regarding bidders for the commercial/office premises for SBI, New Sabzi Mandi branch, Jalandhar’ as under:
(i) Number of bidders applied for the premises.
(ii) Number of properties received for the purpose of bidding.
(iii) Calculation sheet (marks given) made by the Bank for the purpose of selection of premises of New Sabzi Mandi Branch
(iv) Rate offered by the bidders to the Bank for the selection of the premises of New Sabzi Mandi Branch.”
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“Point (i) – Eight bidders applied for the premises.
Point (ii) - Eight properties received for the purpose of bidding.
Point (iii) & (iv) – The sought information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 21.09.2022 observed as under:
“The appellant has sought information on 4 points in his RTI application. The CPIO has provided the reply vide letter dated 18.08.2022. However, the appellant has shown his dissatisfaction over the reply of the CPIO and preferred this appeal on point no. 3 & 4.1 have considered the matter and observe that in case the appellant is a bidder & entitled to witness the price bid at the time of opening the said bid, the comparative statement of the price should be provided to the appellant after following the provisions laid down under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 by redacting the third party personal information such as PAN number, TAN number, Registration number etc. of the third parties. In case the appellant is not a bidder in the said bid and seeking the said information merely as a citizen, cannot be provided as it will affect the commercial interest of the third party.
Therefore the CPIO is directed to re-look above aspect and give an appropriate reply within 15 days of receipt of this order.”
4. In compliance with the FAA’s order, the CPIO provided a reply on 07.11.2022. Aggrieved with the said reply, the Appellant again approached the FAA on 18.11.2022, in response to which the FAA issued another order dated 05.12.2022 stating- “The appellant has now preferred an appeal…on the ground that CPIO has provided the marks given to 3 bidders only whereas in the reply dated 18.08.2022, CPIO has advised that 8 bidders had applied for the premises. When matter was taken up with the CPIO, he has advised that out of 8 bidder's premises/sites of only 3 bidders were found suitable. Accordingly, marks were given only to 3 bidders. In view of the above facts, reply dated 07.11.2022 of the CPIO on point no. 3 & 4 is appropriate. Hence, no direction needs to be given to the CPIO in this regard.”
5. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.12.2022 stating inter alia as under:
“That the CPIO has not provided the calculation sheet (Mark Given) made by the bank for the purpose of selection of premises for new Subji Mandi Branch at the rate offered by bidders to the bank for the selection of premises of New Subji Mandi Branch as detailed at sr. no. 3 & 4 of the application dared 25.07.2022 under the RTI Act. The CPIO as only supplied the list of rate offered by the bidders to the bank in respect of three bidders only selected by the bank and has not provided the rates quoted by the remaining five bidders including the applicant..”
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Amar Pal Goyal, Chief Manager & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The Appellant reiterated the grounds of the second appeal as stated above and urged that he has suffered immense loss due to the withholding of the information by the Respondent.
8. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was duly provided with the marks awarded to as well as the rates quoted by the three bidders as available on record. Further, it was clarified that the other 5 bids were rejected at the technical bid stage itself and such bids which are not technically qualified are not opened and therefore no marks were awarded to the other 5 bidders.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has been provided with the available information by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the CPIO has also explained the unviability of the information related to the remaining 5 bidders during the hearing, which leaves no scope of any intervention in the matter.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Paramjit Singh v. State Bank of India, CIC/SBIND/A/2023/160997; Date of Decision: 24.04.2024