Central Information Commission
Mr. R K Sengupta vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 24 January, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000450AD
Date of Hearing : January 24, 2011
Date of Decision : January 24, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri R.K. Sengupta
C/o Arduous Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Dayamoy Roy Building (1st Floor),
Benachity, Durgapur 713 213
The Appellant was heard through Audio Conferencing.
Respondents
National Institute of Technology,
Mahatma Gandhi Avenue,
Durgapur
West Bengal 713 209
Represented by: Dr. T.K. Sinha, Director, Dr. A.K. Mitra, Professor & Dean, Dr. P. Gupta, Dean & Dr.
S.N. Sarkarm, Asso. Dean (Admn)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000450AD
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 20.11.2009, filed with the Dean, Department of Physics, NIT wanted to know the following with reference to bids invited for widening /upgradation of existing road and existing outfall drain:
"Though our quoted price for both the tenders was higher than that of the lowest bidders, I simply want to know the reasons behind declaring my Bids as unsuccessful...."
2. The CPIO, on 27.11.2009, provided to Applicant with two Nos. of Evaluation sheets of Technical bids dated 28.07.2009 & 04.09.2009 respectively including information related to the Applicant's company viz., Arduous Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. He also referred to the concluding remarks of the expert committee in which the reasons for disqualification of the said company had been mentioned. The Applicant, on the basis of the information furnished to him, formulated another application and filed it with the CPIO on 29.01.2010 seeking 'the specific reason(s) of disqualification'. CPIO, on 25.02.0210, sent another reply to the Applicant explaining therein why he was disqualified.
3. The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the replies, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 23.03.2010 stating that the information furnished to him did not reveal the reason(s) of disqualification of his company. In response to this appeal, the CPIO, on 21.04.2010, interalia, informed the Appellant that the expert committee had rejected four bidders out of ten on technical grounds and that the Appellants' company was one of them.
4. Thereafter, on 10.05.2010, Appellant filed his 2ndappeal in the Commission stating that the clarification/information received from the AA was not in exhaustive term and, hence not satisfying him.
Decision
5. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they had invited two types of bids viz., Technical Bid and Commercial Bid and that commercial bids of only those companies who qualify in the technical assessment are opened for further evaluation. However, in the present case, the Appellant's company i.e. Arduous Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. could not qualify in the firstpartassessment of Technical Bid, and as such was not considered further. According to the Respondents all the information available with them has already been furnished to the Appellant including copies of evaluation sheets of technical bids in both cases and that beyond this they do not hold anything else to satisfy the Appellant.
6. The Appellant, who was heard over the telephone, stated that he had received the evaluation sheets, but that does not meet the requirement of his RTIquery since the reasons for disqualifying him in one of the two cases have not yet been intimated to him.
7. On examining the facts of the case and upon hearing the parties, the Commission noted that no such reasons had been recorded on the evaluation sheets in one case and hence reasons could not be furnished. The information which is not available in the records cannot be directed to be given under the RTIAct, in other words a Public Authority cannot be asked to manufacture information for an Appellant, no matter how genuine an Applicant's case is. Hence the Commission disposes of the appeal while holding that all available information has been provided.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri R.K. Sengupta C/o Arduous Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Dayamoy Roy Building (1st Floor), Benachity, Durgapur 713 213
2. The Appellate Authority National Institute of Technology, Mahatma Gandhi Avenue, Durgapur West Bengal 713 209
3. Public Information Officer, National Institute of Technology, Mahatma Gandhi Avenue, Durgapur West Bengal 713 209
4. Officer Incharge, NIC