Central Information Commission
Man Mohan Pandey vs Bharat Electronics Ltd. on 21 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No :
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602698 CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602695
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602928 CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602921
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602677 CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602738
MAN MOHAN PANDEY .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Bharat Electronics Ltd.,
PO - Bharat Nagar,
Ghaziabad - 201010 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14-05-2024
Date of Decision : 16-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02-11-2022, 08-11-2022, 14-11-2022
CPIO replied on : 01-12-2022, 07-12-2022, 13-12-2022
First appeal filed on : 08-12-2022, 06-12-2022, 15-12-2022, 14-
12-2022, 04-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 28-12-2022, 11-01-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Page 1 of 23
Information sought:
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602698 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02-11-2022 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Appellant on 01- 12-2022 stating as under:
S. No Query Reply
1 Did BEL receive the order for Design, The information sought is
Installation and Commissioning of confidential in nature and disclosure
IACCS project (including civil of which would prejudicially affect
infrastructure) from Indian Air Force the sovereignty and integrity of on Tum Key Basis. India as exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. In addition to the above, the sought information relating to IACCS project is commercially confidence in nature and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of this public authority as exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
2 Did Air Force ask BEL to submit the The information sought is not held Preliminary Project Report for IACCS by this public authority, hence Project so that they could move the cannot be provided. case for ordering the IACCS Project on BEL.
3 Did BEL Outsource the Order for The information sought is Preliminary Project Report for civil confidential in nature and disclosure structure and other Infrastructure of which would prejudicially affect required for housing and operation of the sovereignty and integrity of the IACCS equipment. India as exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. In addition to the above, the sought information relating to IACCS project is commercially confidence in nature and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of this public authority as exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
4 Was the order for PPR given as per BEL WCM does not mention any Page 2 of 23 BEL Works Contract Manual? process related to appointment of architects for "PPR".
5 If the Order was given as per Works Refer answer to query no. 4, the Contract Manual (which defines that sought information is interrogatory any order for Consultancy has to be in nature and hence does not through open tender basis with due constitute information under Section process of paper advertisement 2 (f) of the RTI Act. 2005. calling for tenders) then please share whether the process of Open Tender was followed for ordering of PPR 6 If the Order was not given through Refer answer to query no. 4, the Open tender, then was it given on sought information is interrogatory Nomination Bass. in nature and hence does not constitute information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. 2005.
7 If the order was given on nomination Refer answer to query no. 4, the basis were multiple vendors sought information is interrogatory considered and was the quote taken in nature and hence does not from multiple vendors. constitute information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. 2005.
8 Were Large Corporate houses like The sought information relating to Engineers Indian Limited, NBCC and IACCS project is commercially TATA group of Industries contacted confident in nature and disclosure of by BEL for the PPR. which would harm the competitive position of this public authority as exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
9 Was the recommendation for going in The sought information is for Nomination Basis for the PPR interrogatory in nature and hence given to BEL by DRDO along with the does not constitute information recommendation for the Vendor. under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
10 Were any estimates made by BEL for The sought information is the order placed for the PPR. Were interrogatory in nature and hence any estimates given to BEL by DRDO. does not constitute information Please share with me the basis for the under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, estimates. 2005.
11 There is a CVC circular with respect to The sought information is ordering of Consultancy Contracts interrogatory in nature and hence which has a clause of undue does not constitute information advantage to vendors. As per this under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, clause any vendor getting any 2005.
Page 3 of 23consultancy order cannot be considered for any further consultancy order on the same subject. Was this clause included in the Order placed on the vendor for PPR (bringing out that he would not be considered for any further consultancy Order related to IACCS Project) 12 Was the PPR submitted by the vendor The sought information is not held based on similar civil structure by this public authority, hence existing in Delhi which was designed cannot be provided. and implemented by DRDO. Was this report marked Top Secret Document?
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28-12-2022, held as under:
"Appeal is rejected. The reply given by PIO is complete to the extent possible."
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602695 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02-11-2022 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 01- 12-2022 stating as under:
S. Query Reply
No
1 Was the order for DPR for IACCS Yes.
Project given by BEL to the same
vendor who was given the order for
Preliminary Project Report for LACCS.
2 As per CVC Circular with respect to The information sought is clarificatory
"Undue advantage to vendors" it was in nature, hence is not an mandatory that either the vendor who "information" under Section 2(f) of the was given the order for PPR should not RTI Act, 2005. Hence, cannot be have been considered for DPR or in the provided. DPR(if ordered through open tender), the tender should have all the details which were submitted by the vendor Page 4 of 23 for the PPR. Please confirm whether all the details of PPR were put in the Open Tender taken out for DPR to ensure same level playing field for all vendors to quote.
3 Did Engineers India limited (Ell) qualify The query is not clear as the query technically in the Tender for DPR (with annotates the word "Field", therefore the confirmation that the company cannot be provided. was in this field for last more than five years).
4 Was the Open tender taken out for the The information sought is confidential Detailed Project Report for all the ten in nature and disclosure of which sites for civil infrastructure and would affect the security of the nation, hardware required to make these hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a) structures blast proof standalone of the RTI Act, 2005.In addition to the operational. above, the sought information relating to IACCS project is commercially confidence in nature and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of this public authority as exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
5 As the ten sites were distributed all The information sought is confidential
over the country was it envisaged that in nature and disclosure of which
depending on the soil condition there would affect the security of the nation,
would be five type of designs (including hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a)
one over ground design). of the RTI Act, 2005.
6 Was the estimated cost for DPR based The information sought is confidential
on there being four types of design and in nature and disclosure of which
order being distributed to three would affect the security of the nation,
vendors (5:3:2 ratio) and II vendor hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a)
getting five sites with two types of of the RTI Act, 2005.
design.
7 Were DRDO representatives called as Yes.
experts while technically qualifying the
vendors.
8 Did the DRDO reps recommend that in The information sought is confidential
place of five types of design (four in nature and disclosure of which
underground and one over ground) would affect the security of the nation,
there would be only one type of design hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a)
for all underground sites. of the RTI Act, 2005.
9 After shortlisting of vendors was the The information sought is confidential
Page 5 of 23
tender taken out based on single in nature and disclosure of which design for all the sites. would affect the security of the nation, hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
10 Was the estimated cost of tender The information sought is confidential reduced based on designs at all sites in nature and disclosure of which being same? would affect the security of the nation, hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
11 Was the ordering of DPR comply with All relevant procedures existing at the the BEL Works Contracts Manual? time of contracting were followed. 12 Was the turnover of last three years of Yes.
the Vendor who came L1. confirmed with the Balance Sheet of the past three years or was it confirmed through a certificate given by a Chartered Account Firm 13 Please confirm whether the Vendor The information sought is clarificatory (Partnership Firm) which came L1 was in nature, hence is not "information" established in April 2010. Also confirm under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. that the Certificate from Chartered Hence, cannot be provided.
Accountant submitted by this Partnership Firm showed a turnover of the Firm in 2009-10 (when the Firm did not even exist).
14 As per BEL WCM the PQ committee is BEL WCM does not mandate PQ supposed to visit the works claimed to committee to visit site. have been implemented by the vendors to confirm the quality of the works. Did the PQ committee visit the sites claimed to have been completed by the Vendor who came LI.
15 Did the vendor who got order for PPR Yes.
came L1 in the tender for DPR also 16 Was the quoted cost of the vendor who The information sought is confidential came L1 almost the same as was in nature and disclosure of which initially estimated for order for five would affect the security of the nation, sites (with two types of design). hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. In addition to the above, the sought information relating to IACCS project is commercially Page 6 of 23 confidence in nature and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of this public authority as exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
17 Was any negotiation hold with the Yes, as per prevailing procedure/ vendor (since the cost quoted by the guidelines. vendor was. much more than the estimated cost). As per BEL WCM if the quoted cost is more than 20% of the estimated cost it is considered as abnormally high or abnormally low and is supposed to be negotiated.
18 Please confirm that in the scope of The information sought is clarificatory work for the Detailed Design report in nature, hence is not "information" was detailed Civil Engineering design under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. (including detailed construction Hence, cannot be provided. drawings and detailed of excavation required at each site, selection of equipment required for making the civil buildings blast proof (including supplier and supplier references for the various equipment to be used), making the detailed tender documents for the ordering of civil contracts, monitoring of civil construction with respect to compliance with the design.
19 Please confirm if the Vendor for DPR The information sought is clarificatory was overall responsible for the Civil in nature, hence is not an structures/buildings meeting the "information" under Section 2(f) of the overall requirements specifications. for RTI Act, 2005. Hence, cannot be the standalone blast proof structures provided. 20 Please confirm whether the vendor The information sought is clarificatory submitted a single design for all the in nature, hence is not an underground sites or did he submit two "information" under Section 2(f) of the designs based on the site soil RTI Act, 2005. Hence, cannot be conditions. provided.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28-12-2022, held as under:
Page 7 of 23"Appeal is rejected. The reply given by PIO is complete to the extent possible."
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602928 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"As per RTI Act 2005 Please share the following information with me with respect to ordering of equipment for Standalone Blast Proof Buildings:
1.0 Please confirm that the equipment required for underground blast proof buildings for housing IACCS system were supplied to the Indian Air Force by BEL.
2.0 Please confirm that the specifications required for the various equipment required to make the buildings blast proof were finalized by the Design Consultant who was ordered the Detailed project report by BEL.
3.0 Please confirm that the scope of the Detailed Project Report ordered on the Design Consultant included the finalization of the specifications for all the equipment required to make the underground buildings blast proof and meeting the end specifications. Did the Design Consultant submit detailed specifications of all the systems/equipment required. Did the Design Consultant specify the Make and Model number for each equipment.
4.0 Were the Make and Model Number as specified by the Design Consultant shared by BEL with Air Force and were the same included in the IACCS Contract document signed between BEL and Air Force.
5.0 Did CMD-BEL constitute a Technical Committee for selection of IACCS Infrastructure related headed by GM (NAMU) vide letter 15011/7/CMD Dated 24th May'2017. Please confirm that one of the areas defined for this committee was to finalize the specifications and to identify and specify make and model number of all the equipment to be used in IACCS Project.
6.0 Was a member of the Design Consultant also the member of the Technical Committee.
7.0 Please clarify that if the finalization of specifications were part of the DPR to the design consultant and if all specifications were submitted by the Design Consultant, then what was the role of the Technical Committee for finalization of specifications.Page 8 of 23
8.0 Please confirm that if the overall responsibility of meeting the end specifications of Standalone buildings was the responsibility of the Design Consultant what role did the Technical Committee play in finalization of specifications or changing the specifications from what were submitted by the Design Consultant.
9.0 Was the technical Committee sent for a visit to multiple European Companies to have a look on the facilities and capacities existing for manufacturing of the Equipment required. Was the representative of the Design Consultant included in the team sent to Europe. Did the Design Consultant play a role in deciding which companies would be visited.
10.0 Please confirm whether only European Companies were shortlisted for supply of equipment. Were these Suppliers defined by the Design Consultant.
11.0 If the technical Committee was competent to decide the equipment required for making the buildings standalone blast proof, then why was the order for the same given to the Design Consultant.
12.0 Since the overall responsibility of meeting the end specifications was with the Design Consultant were the changes made (if any) in the specifications of the equipment duly vetted by the Design Consultant.
13.0 Please confirm whether the Design Consultant in his presentation to the Pre-Qualification Committee defined the Make and Model Numbers of the various Equipment he proposed to use in the system (if he got the order for Consultancy)."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 07-12-2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6:
The information sought is confidential in nature and disclosure of which would affect the security of the nation, hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 7, 8 & 9:
The sought information is clarificatory in nature and hence does not constitute information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 9 of 23
Point No. 10:
The information sought is confidential in nature and disclosure of which would affect the security of the nation, hence exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 11 & 12:
The sought information is clarificatory in nature and hence does not constitute information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 13:
The information sought is related to commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of this public authority and larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of such information as exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005, hence cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 11-01-2023, held as under:
"Appeal is rejected. The reply given by PIO is complete to the extent possible."
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602921 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"With Reference to the Ordering/implementation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for IACCS on the Design Consultant please provide me the following information as per RTI Act 2005:
1.0 Please confirm whether in the sanction file for ordering of DPR it was brought out that the design of Civil Construction of buildings to house the IACCS Infrastructure at various sites would be dependent on the site soil condition.
According was it envisaged that there would be four types of soil conditions leading to four types of Civil Engineering design.
2.0 Please confirm whether it was initially proposed that Order DPR to multiple vendors in the ratio 5:3:2 based on four types of design (with five sites to be given to L1 along with two designs).
Page 10 of 233.0 Please confirm whether one of the vendors (who finally got the order for DPR) had in his presentation made during Pre-Qualification itself claimed that he had already presented the Detail Design for the buildings proposed to be housing the IACCS equipment to the Air Force.
4.0 Please confirm that that the Design Consultant was given order for all the sites based on the input from DRDO representatives (present in the PQ presentation) that all sites would have the same design as the design would not depend on the soil condition.
5.0 Please confirm that as per DPR Contract the vendor was to submit "duly approved" site survey reports and drawings for all sites to BEL.
6.0 Please confirm whether 7.5% of the total payment for DPR was paid to the vendor on submission of Geo-technical and Topographical survey report of all the sites duly approved by IIT Mumbai Professor.
7.0 Please confirm whether the duly approved survey reports and drawings of all the sites which were submitted by the vendor (approved by IIT Mumbai Professor) were confirmed by BEL internally by Civil Engineering group in CNP or through any independent third Party.
8.0 Please confirm that the Design Consultant submitted two types of Civil Engineering Designs (duly approved by a Professor from IIT-Delhi). Please confirm that the survey which was carried out by the Design Consultant at all sites confirmed that there were only two types of soils (Normal soil and Rocky soil).
9.0 Please confirm whether as per the DPR Contract the details of selection of foundation at each site (based on the site soil condition) was to be submitted by Design Consultant. Please confirm whether the selection of Foundation at each site was submitted by the Design Consultant.
10.0 Please confirm that at one of the costal sites the total design of the building had to be changed since the foundation design had to be changed from Dead foundation to Pile type of foundation. Please confirm as per site survey report submitted by the Design Consultant what type of soil was confirmed (which was duly approved by IIT Professor) at this costal site.
11.0 Please confirm whether the change required in the foundation design of the building at costal area was brought out by the Design Consultant or by the Civil Contractor. Please confirm whether the Civil Contractor had warned that if Page 11 of 23 the foundation at that site was not charged then during an earthquake (which the site was prone to) the whole building could get washed off into the Sea 12.0 Please confirm that as per basic civil engineering requirements for any costal site having very high-water table the foundation for any structure has to be only Pile type (BEL was aware of the same having done a lot of Antenna Foundations at various costal sites). Hence please confirm that the site survey report submitted by the Design Consultant (and surprisingly approved by an IIT Professor) was not seen by any civil Engineer in BEL (BEL CNP division has the requisite expertise having done many foundation designs for costal surveillance radars).
13.0 Please confirm whether the claim of change in the Foundation of the building at costal location was confirmed by BEL by ordering the same to an IISc Professor. Please share the extracts from the report of IISc Professor confirming that the design submitted by the design consultant for that site was not suiting the soil conditions at the site.
14.0 Please share with me the extra cost paid to the civil contractor for change in the foundation from dead foundation to Pile Foundation. Please also share with me the estimate for this change as submitted by the IISc Professor. Please share with me what cost was paid to the IISc Professor and whether that cost was deducted from the final payment made to the Design Consultant (as per the DPR Contract terms).
15.0 Please confirm that at one of the sites soft soils was encountered which was not envisaged in the site survey report submitted by the Design Consultant). Please confirm that the excavation at this site was carried out as per Rocky soil (as per the site survey report of the Design Consultant). Please confirm that due to wrong excavation methodology (which was suited for rocky soil condition as submitted by the design consultant) the four walls of excavation carved in. Pease confirm what was the soil condition for this site in the survey report submitted by the design consultant for this site (duly approved by IIT Mumbai Professor and accepted by BEL). Please share with me the extra cost which had to be paid to the Civil Contractor for initially trying to save the excavation from collapsing and later after collapse for re-excavation as per soft soil requirements.
16.0 Please confirm that with two soil condition submitted by the Design Consultant (as per the site survey allegedly done by him) and soft soil encountered at one site and one Costal soil condition there were finally four Page 12 of 23 types of soil condition found at the sites (which was as per the original estimate taken by BEL initially when the file for ordering of DPR was initiated).
17.0 Thus, please confirm that the input given by DRDO reps (based on which the order for all ten sites was given to one vendor) that all ten sites would have same Civil design was an erroneous decision.
18.0 Thus, please confirm that the order given to the design consultant with the condition that design of all sites is the same was also an erroneous decision (since the Design Consultant had himself submitted two different designs which finally turned out to be four different designs).
19.0 Please confirm that at one of the sites the water column encountered was much above the level which was submitted by the Design Consultant (based on the site survey results). Please confirm that the excavation methodology had to undergo a change resulting in extra cost being paid to the civil contractor. Please share with me the extra cost paid to the civil contractor at this site to arrest the gushing of water during excavation and for removal of the water during excavation.
20.0 Please share with me the total deviations which were encountered at the various sites when compared to the design/procedures submitted by the Design Consultant. Also please share the cost outgo from BEL side for overcoming each of these deviations.
21.0 Please confirm whether the Design consultant was paid extra for designing and providing the changed methodology for the excavation at the site where soft soil was encountered and also if he was paid for the design and methodology changes made for the site where high water column was encountered.
22.0 Please share with me all data with respect to the extra cost paid to the Design Consultant for the modifications required to be carried out at the sites due to the variations from the original Design submitted by the Design Consultant.
23.0 After the deviations observed in the Soil Condition at various sites (from what was submitted by the Design Consultant) did BEL get the site survey report for all sites conducted by the Design Consultant (which was approved by an IIT Professor) validated by any third party.
Page 13 of 2324.0 Please confirm whether there was a clause of "Responsibility for data & Designs" as part of the Contract with the Design Consultant.
25.0 As per the above clause please confirm whether the responsibility for the correctness, adequacy and accuracy of the designs lied with the Design Consultant.
26.0 Please confirm that as per the Liability clause given in the DPR contract document in case of gross negligence of the Consultant or on the part of any person or firm acting on behalf of the consultant in carrying out the services, the liability of the consultant shall be 100% of the contract value for defects in the deliverable/deficiencies in the service.
27.0 Please confirm that the wrong design submitted for the costal site by the Consultant (and also with the site having soft soil) was clear negligence on the part of the Consultant (since it is obvious that site survey was not carried out at these places). Was any penalty put on the Design Consultant for the wrong design submitted by him for some of the sites.
28.0 Hence please confirm that if the initial consideration which was for splitting order on three vendors for Design Consultancy (with L1 making two designs and the two others making one design each and all three giving multiple vendors for the equipment required to make the buildings blast proof and stand-alone) then Optimal Design would have been arrived at for the sites and competitive biddings could have been done for the Civil Construction as well as the equipment required."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13-12-2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1:
The sought information is interrogatory in nature and hence does not constitute information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 2:
The sought information relating to IACCS project is commercially confidence in nature and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of this public authority as exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 3 to 28:Page 14 of 23
The sought information is interrogatory in nature and hence does not constitute information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 11-01-2023, held as under:
"Appeal is rejected. The reply given by PIO is complete to the extent possible."
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602677 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"As per RTI Act 2005 Please share the following Information with me with respect to the implementation of Civil infrastructure as per Detailed Project Report (DPR) submitted by the Design Consultant:
1.0 Please confirm that the order for DPR was given to the vendor with the tender calling for same design for all the underground civil structures.
2.0 Please confirm that the Design Consultant had submitted two different designs based on the site soil condition.
3.0 Please confirm to me whether penalty clause (for any deviation in design encountered at site) was put in the order placed on the Design Consultant.
4.0 Please confirm that the ordering of all nine underground sites was done at the same cost. If not, then what was the percentage variation in lowest and the highest cost paid for the nine sites.
5.0 Please confirm whether M/s L&T got the order for the three sites with the highest cost.
6.0 Please confirm whether L&T subcontracted part of the civil works at sites to M/s C S Constructions.
7.0 Please confirm whether M/s CS Constructions was owned by M/s Rohit Boucher who was the brother-in-law of one of the Partners of the Design Consultants (Mrs Ruby Kanth).Page 15 of 23
8.0 Please confirm that at one of the sites the four walls of excavation collapsed (since the excavation was being carried out as per excavation process for rocky soil conditions) and actual soft soil was encountered at the site.
9.0 Please share with me the extra cost which was paid to the civil contractor due to efforts made to stop the four walls from collapsing and then finally re-
excavation after the walls collapsed.
10.0 Please share with me whether extra cost was paid to the Design Consultant for giving the design for re-excavation.
11.0 Please conform whether at one of the Costal sites the Foundation design of the underground civil structure had to be charged from Dead Foundation (as submitted by Design Consultant) to Pile type of Foundation. 12.0 Was the objection to the Design submitted by the Design Consultant made by the Civil Contractor.
13.0 Please confirm to me whether the requirement of Pile Foundation was validated by IISc Professor (order placed for the same by BEL). Did the IISc Professor confirm that the design submitted by the Design Consultant was not fit for Costal area.
14.0 Please conform if the cost for change in the foundation was submitted to BEL by the Civil Consultant or by the Design Consultant. Was this cost Rs 20 Crores.
15.0 Please confirm whether the IISc Professor had given any estimates for the change in the design to Pile Foundation. Was this estimate in variation from the one given by the Civil Contractor.
16.0 Please share with me the overall extra cost paid to the Design Consultant (over and above the cost as per the order for DPR placed on him). Was there any Penalty put on the Design Consultant based on the deviations in the design which were encountered at the sites (which was put in the Contract for DPR).
17.0 Please share with me whether the Design Consultant (as part of DPR) had submitted detailed specifications of all the equipment required to make the civil structures blast proof. Did the Design Consultant submit Supplier and Supplier Reference for all the equipment required.
Page 16 of 2318.0 As part of DPR, was the Design Consultant responsible for the equipped underground civil structures meeting all the specifications for standalone blast proof buildings.
19.0 Please confirm that finally for construction of underground civil structures there were four types of design (two submitted by the Design Consultant, one for loose soli condition and one for Costal condition)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01-12-2022 stating as under:
"The applicant has filed this application without specifying the particulars of the information sought by him as mentioned in Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 hence the application is rejected."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28-12-2022, held as under:
"Appeal is rejected. The reply given by PIO is complete to the extent possible."
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/602738 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08-11-2022 seeking the following information:
"As per RTI Act 2005 please share with me the following information with respect to direct recruitment of Mr. Manish Goyal as Manager/IACCS/INFRA:
1. In the Application Form submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal please confirm that he has shown the date of Joining L&T as 01-08-2004 as Assistant Manager (Construction).
2. In the Service Certificate given to Mr. Manish Goyal by L&T (which is has been submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal along with his application), please confirm that it is certified that the date of Joining of Mr. Manish Goyal in L&T is shown as 1st July 2005 (as Assistant Manager/Construction in 02 grade).
3. In the Service Certificate issued by L&T to Mr. Manish Goyal please confirm that it is certified that he was Graduate Engineer Trainee in L&T for the Period 01-07-2004 to 30-06-2005. (The period between 1st June 2004 and 30th June 2004 has not been mentioned by Mr. Manish Goyal).Page 17 of 23
4. Please confirm that there is a discrepancy in the Application Form submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal (that he joined L&T as Assistant Manager on 1st August '2004) and that given in the L&T Service Certificate (that he joined L&T as Assistant Manager on 1st July'2005).
5. Please confirm whether giving wrong information in the Application form submitted by any candidate (to give wrong information with respect to his experience) is criminal Offence.
6. Please confirm whether the Letter of Appointment received from L&T was submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal along with his job application.
7. Please confirm that in the L&T appointment letter (as submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal to the Investigation Officer and the same was forwarded by the Investigation officer to AGM /HR&A/BEL-GAD) it was clearly mentioned that the first year he would be a Graduate Engineer Trainee and his service would be governed by the Government of India Apprenticeship Act 1961.
8. Please confirm that as per Government of India Apprentice Act 1961 the period of Apprenticeship is considered as training period and not as Job experience (reference can be taken from the Graduate Engineers taken as Graduate Apprentices by BEL).
9. Please confirm that the Appointment letter issued by L&T also states that Mr. Manish Goyal was to be considered for the post of Assistant Manager after one year of successful completion of training if vacancy exists in the company (which means he was not an employee of L&T for the period of training).
10. Please confirm that BEL had considered the PF Statement submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal to confirm his experience in L&T.
11. Please confirm that in the PF statement submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal no PF had been deducted for the period between 1st July 2004 and 30th June 2005 (during this period he was only paid a stipend by L&T).
12. Please confirm that Mr. Manish Goyal was sponsored for two years of full time M. Tech at IIT Chennai by L&T. Hence from July'2006 to June 2008 he was doing full time M-Tech at IIT Chennai and the same has been considered as Job Experience by BEL.Page 18 of 23
13.Please share the relevant rule/circular/office order as per which the full time M. Tech Period is considered as Job experience by BEL.
14. Please confirm that as per Paper Advertisement and BEL recruitment rules (existing at that time) the total Job experience required was 10 years (minimum) and BELL (HR&A) had considered the Apprentice period on one year and two years full time M. Tech as "Job Experience" and with this the total Job Experience was considered as 10 years and 11 months.
15.Please confirm whether AGM(HR&A) had received an email from the investigation Officer (GM/PS) enclosing the L&T Appointment Letter submitted by Mr. Manish Goyal bringing out that the first year of Mr. Manish Goyal in L&T was governed by Government of India Apprentice Act 1961. Please confirm what action was taken by the AGM(HR&A) on this information. Did he ask for an explanation from Mr. Manish Goyal."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 07-12-2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1, 2, 3 & 4:
The sought information is exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it 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, hence cannot be provided.
Point No. 5:
The sought Information is clarificatory in nature, hence does not constitute information under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 6 & 7:
The sought information is exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it 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, hence cannot be provided.
Point No. 8:
Yes, GAPP training period is taken as job experience.
Point No. 9, 10, 11 & 12:Page 19 of 23
The sought information is exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it 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, hence cannot be provided.
Point No. 13:
The sought information is not held, hence cannot be provided."
Point No. 14&15:
The sought information is exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it 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, hence cannot be provided.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15-12-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 11-01-2023, held as under:
"Appeal is rejected. The reply given by PIO is complete to the extent possible."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Chetan Jaysingh Patil, AGM-cum-CPIO, Shri Davinder Kumar Singla, DGM and Shri Swastik Bhardwaj, Legal Officer, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that he was GM (product support) in BEL and was inquiry officer appointed by CVO.
The Respondent submitted that an adequate and point-wise reply qua the instant RTI Applications has been given by the CPIO. He added that the Appellant was terminated from the service for sharing confidential information Page 20 of 23 of BEL in public domain for which a case is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and since the Appellant is disgruntled employee of the organisation, he is misusing his right to information by filing similar RTI Applications to resolve his grievance.
A written submission dated nil has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated nil and the same has been taken on record, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"I hope that the CIC will take cognizance of the wrong information and blatant lie resorted to by the CPIO BEL and FAA. If as per CIC any lie can be resorted to by CPIO to close any RTI and the CIC can only be a mute observer (with the claim that CIC is not a legal body to decide whether any illegal activity is being done by the CPIO) then I have nothing to say.
The information asked for by me, if it is given to me it will help me in proving that all wrong charges were put on me (since the CMD-BEL had falsely claimed that no corruption had taken place and termed by investigation as "Conspiracy to jeopardize national security".
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that an appropriate and point- wise reply in terms of RTI Act has been provided by the Respondent in each of the above cases and the Commission upholds the same. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 14 cases of the same Appellant against same and related Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the instant Appeals listed for today's hearing have been heard together along with other 8 matters of the Appellant simultaneously and the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
It appears that the Appellant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to Page 21 of 23 the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied Therefore, the Commission counsels the Appellant not to file repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.Page 22 of 23
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant matter.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 23 of 23 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)