Proof of payment made by IOCL against certain invoices raised by Supreme Advertising was sought - CIC: Appellant is seeking information in his individual capacity which is of commercial nature between IOCL and SAPL; Exempt u/s 8(1)(d) read with 8(1)(j)
13 Apr, 2021O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, JB Tito Marg, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) “Payments made by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. against the invoices raised by Supreme Advertising Private Limited, which was earlier known as Hythro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 301, Somdatt Chambers-ll, 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066 (,SAPL") for providing outdoor advertising services;
(ii) Whether payments have been made by your company against invoice no. SAPL/ADC/2016-2017/269 for an amount of Rs. 17,25,000/- and if yes, how much is paid to SAPL against each of the invoices so mentioned. I also wish to obtain copies of the payment proofs in relation to the same”.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 10.12.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 10.01.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was represented through representative Ms. Rashmi Rai who attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Anurag Shukla, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The representative of the appellant submitted that no information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent on his RTI application dated 14.09.2018. She further submitted that they wants the copy of ledgers with respect to the payments to SAPL.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 02.11.2018 and 10.01.2019, they have informed the appellant that “The information sought relates to Petrotech-2016. The information is not available with IOCL, as all the records pertaining to the event were handed over to Federation of Indian Petroleum Industries (FIPI) after closing of Petrotech-2016”. The respondent submitted that they have further informed the appellant that “all the payments, as raised by M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited for the work executed during the period related to Petrotech-2016, have been paid and there are no dues left on this account. However, Respondent has reiterated that copies of documentary evidences in this regard cannot be provided, as the same is not available with IOCL”.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant was aggrieved with non-supply of information as sought in the RTI application dated 14.09.2018. The respondent has categorically informed the appellant that “all the payments, as raised by M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited for the work executed during the period related to Petrotech-2016, have been paid and there are no dues left on this account. However, Respondent has reiterated that copies of documentary evidences in this regard cannot be provided, as the same is not available with IOCL”.
7. The Commission further observed that the appellant is seeking information in his individual capacity from the respondent public authority regarding M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited. The appellant is clearly seeking the commercial information which pertains to third party and the appellant is not the authorized representative of SAPL to whom the information can be disclosed. The appellant had raised grievance with respect to some dispute of payment with SAPL (which is not a public authority). The information sought is of commercial nature between IOCL and SAPL. Nonetheless, the respondent has given the factual information to the appellant vide letter dated 10.01.2019 inspite of being third party information. The appellant, during the hearing, keeps on insisting that proof of payment should be provided to him. On this, the respondent has categorically submitted that no such information is available with them.
8. The Commission further observed that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is exempted from disclosure 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; read with Section 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, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party. However, no larger public interest is disclosed by the appellant. In the context of non disclosure of 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; of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was held as under:
14. “....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of 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 Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties.”
9. The appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rohit Yajnik v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2019/118452, Date: 25-01-2021