Sterlite power - Respondent furnished an affidavit stating that the RTI Application was not received - CIC: In the absence of the Appellant during hearing, no scope for further intervention; PIO to upload a copy of affidavit on CIC website for record
16 Aug, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.02.2022 seeking the following information:
a) “The sterilite power has given past experience details, financial date like balance sheet, board of directors, certificate of incorporation memorandum of association, articles of association etc also LVTPLTD as well as sterilite power grid venture Ltd and sterilite grid 18 ltd and sterilite power trans, ltd (from the details with me it transpires that nearly five companies are involved in this tender and getting contract) so complete details of all companies.
b) All the minutes of the meeting held with ministry of power/CEA or, others till date etc and vice versa.
c) Route map passing through lands of farmers showing revenue survey numbers and villages duly approved.
d) The route map has to be prepared by expert surveyor duly qualified & registered with competent authority. (if not than any tom dick & hary say a B.com graduate can prepare it and will ministry of power approve it) be pleased, to give complete information.
e) There must be minimum criteria for share capital and past experience in this field to award a contract. please provide circular for the same.
f) Be pleased to provide notification whether contract once finalized and given to sterlite power can be passed on to LVTP LTD or any other company or entity.
g) Be pleased to provide copy of the bank guarantee taken/obtained by the Authority whom contract is awarded.
h) Be please to provide circular/notification/rules under which sterlite power grid venture ltd can make application/representation before collector u/s 16 of telegraph act.
i) Who has published notice u/s 164 of electricity act & in which newspapers .be pleased to provide complete details with copy of license or approval ( I have public notice for approval u/s 68 dated 03/12/2019
j) Be pleased to provide complete correspondence from starting till today like reports, agreements execution plans . sec-164 approval etc.
k) Be pleased to to provide complete correct and factual information as I am rustic villager and do not know the technicalities . the farmers of village Raval are the real suffers.”
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 05.5.2022 stating as under:
S.No., Information sought and Reply
- The sterilite power has given past experience details, financial date like balance sheet, board of directors, certificate of incorporation memorandum of association, articles of association etc. also LVTPLTD as well as sterilite power grid venture Ltd and sterilite grid 18 ltd and sterilite power trans, ltd (from the details with me it transpires that nearly five companies are involved in this tender and getting contract) so complete details of all companies.
PFC Consulting Limited (PFCCL) being the Bid Process Coordinator (BPC) had incorporated "Lakadia-Vadodara Transmission Project Limited" (LVTPL) as an SPV to take up pre-award activities for the project. Further, after completion of the Bid Process, the SPV(LVTPL) was transferred to the Successful Bidder i.e. Sterlite Grid 18 Limited" on November 25, 2019 for implementation of the transmission line (Project). ln the instant case, Sterlite Grid 18 Limited was the bidder for the Project and had used the credentials of Sterlite Power Grid Ventures Limited for meeting the financial requirements.
The Certificate of incorporation, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association etc, for the bidding company i.e. Sterlite Grid 18 Limited is already available On the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)- However the copies of same are enclosed; Further, the Balance Sheet of Sterlite Power Grid Ventures Limited for the financial year 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 is enclosed.
The criteria for selection of the bidder is as per the Standard Bidding Documents (SBDS) issued by Ministry of Power Govt. of lndia. The extract from SBD is attached at Annex-l.
- All the minutes of the meeting held with ministry of power/CEA or, others till date etc and vice versa.
The information sought is confidential in nature and hence cannot be shared publically as per Clause 1(d) of Section 8 of the Right to lnformation,2005
- Route map passing through lands of farmers showing revenue survey numbers and villages duly approved.
The SPV was transferred to the Successful Bidder "Sterlite Grid 18 Limited" on November 26, 2019 for implementation of the project. Not relevant or pertains to PFCCL
- The route map has to be prepared by expert surveyor duly qualified & registered with competent authority. (if not than any tom dick & hary say a B.com graduate can prepare it and will ministry of power approve it) be pleased, to give complete information.
As per Clause 2.5 of Request for Proposal (RFP)document for the project, after the acquisition of the SPV by-the Successful Bidder, all rights and obligations along with contractual obligations will be fulfilled by the Successful Bidder i.e. Sterlite Grid 18 Limited
The Successful. Bidder implements the project including the construction, detailed survey, etc. lf required, the requisite information may be obtained from the Successful Bidder i.e. Sterlite Grid 18 Limited.
- There must be minimum criteria for share capital and past experience in this field to award a contract. please provide circular for the same.
Ministry of Power appointed PFCCL as Bid Process Coordinator (BPC) for selection of Transmission. Service Provider for development of the transmission project as per the Tariff - Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB), I Guidelines, and Standard Bidding Document (SBDs} issued, by Ministry of Power {MoP).
- Be pleased to provide notification whether contract once finalized and given to sterlite power can be passed on to LVTP LTD or any other company or entity.
PFCCL being] the Bid Process Coordinator: (BPC) had incorporated the SPV : "Lakadia Vadodara Transmission Project Limited" (LVTPL) for the Project and after conducting the Bid process, the SPV was transferred to the Successful Bidder i.e. 'Sterlite Grid 18 limited" on November 26, 2019 for the implementation of the project. As per Clause 2.5 of RFP, after the acquisition of the SPV by the Successful Bidder, all rights and obligations along with contractual obligations be fulfilled by the Successful Bidder. i:e.Sterilite Grid 18 limited It may be noted that the role of BPC ends with the transfer of SPV to the successful bidder.
- Be pleased to provide copy of the bank guarantee taken/obtained by the Authority whom contract is awarded.
The information sought is confidential in nature and hence cannot be shared publicly .as per clause 1 (d) of the Section 8 of the Right to Information Act.2005
- Be please to provide circular/notification/rules under which sterlite power grid venture ltd can make application/representation before collector u/s 16 of telegraph act.
Not relevant or pertain to PFCCL
- Who has published notice u/s 164 of electricity act & in which newspapers .be pleased to provide complete details with copy of license or approval ( I have public notice for approval u/s 68 dated 03/12/2019
Not relevant or pertain to PFCCL
- Be pleased to provide complete correspondence from starting till today like reports, agreements execution plans, sec-164 approval etc.
Not relevant or pertain to PFCCL
- Be pleased to provide complete correct and factual information as I am rustic villager and do not know the technicalities the farmers of village Raval are the real suffers.
Not relevant or pertain to PFCCL
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.4.2022. FAA’s order dated 4.5.2022 dismissed the appeal on merits.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of unsatisfactory response and alleged denial of information by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Sachin Arora, C.S. & CPIO along with Advocate Jagdeep Kishore present through intra-video conference.
The Advocate of the CPIO at the outset apprised the bench that a Complaint on the same RTI Application has already been heard and disposed of by the Commission on 01.09.2022 vide case file no. CIC/PFCLT/C/2022/121085 with the following observations –
“….The Respondent submitted that as per their records the instant RTI Application was not received by the CPIO, however, upon receipt of a First Appeal dated 25.04.2022 by the FAA, the CPIO was directed to provide a reply to the Complainant on 04.05.2022. Subsequently, the reply to the RTI Application was provided to the Complainant on 05.05.2022. He further submitted that as per their records, the Complainant has thereafter filed a Second Appeal before the CIC in June, 2022 of which an advance copy has been received by their office, which renders the instant Complaint infructuous. Lastly, he desired to send his written submissions on the same lines in the matter and sought for adequate time in this respect until Monday i.e. 05.09.2022.
The Commission while remarking that having made the above submissions before the bench, the advocate is not required to send the same in writing, allowed the him to file the written submissions latest by 05.09.2022.
Decision
As per records, no written submissions as desired to be sent by the advocate post hearing have been received by the Commission.
Nonetheless, the Commission at the outset invites the attention of the advocate of the Respondent to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in the matter of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under in the context of the provisions of Section 18 & 19 of the RTI Act:
The criteria for selection of the bidder is as per the Standard Bidding Documents (SBDS) issued by Ministry of Power Govt. of lndia. The extract from SBD is attached at Annex-l.
“37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other....”
In other words, the insistence of the advocate for treating the instant complaint as infructuous in light of a subsequent appeal filed by the Complainant is untenable as the Complainant was well within his right to seek remedy under Section 18 of the RTI Act when he did not receive a reply to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. Any action of the Respondent office emanating after the date of initiation of the instant complaint will not render the complaint infructuous rather it will be deemed as a relevant submission to decide upon the culpability of the Respondent CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Since, the submission of the Respondent office is that the instant RTI Application was not received by the CPIO, the scope of action is limited in the matter to the said aspect. Thus, while taking into consideration the fact that a point-wise reply was eventually provided to the Complainant on 05.05.2022, the Commission does not find any malafides in the fact that the said reply was not provided in the original instance.
However, the CPIO is directed to file an appropriate affidavit stating to this effect that the instant RTI Application in original was not received by his office. The said affidavit shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order with its copy duly endorsed to the Complainant.”
The advocate of the CPIO further apprised the Commission that in compliance to the above said directions, an affidavit stating that the instant RTI Application in original was not received by his office. has already been filed by the CPIO on 21.09.2022 and he agreed to upload a copy of the same with the instant case on CIC’s website for the purpose of record.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after considering submissions of the CPIO is of the view that since the Respondent has already furnished an affidavit stating that the instant RTI Application in original was not received by his office; on the impugned RTI Application vide above mentioned case; therefore, no further additional observation in this regard is warranted.
In view of the above and more particularly the absence of the Appellant during hearing, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter.
However, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to upload a copy of his affidavit (as mentioned above) on the CIC’s website for the purpose of record. The said direction should be complied with immediately upon receipt of this order.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Narendra Ranchodbhai Patel v. Power Finance Corporation Consulting Limited, CIC/PFCLT/A/2022/131007; 04/07/2023