Central Information Commission
Mrdebajit Dutta vs Oil India Limited (Oil) on 8 August, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000096
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Date of first hearing : 4th July 2016
Date of first order : 4th July 2016
Date of second hearing : 8th August 2016
Date of final order : 8th August 2016
Name of the Complainant : Shri Debajit Dutta,
Bordubi Model Town, POHoogrijan,
DisttTinsukia, Assam 786601
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Oil India Limited
Regd. Office: Dulliajan, Dibrugarh,
Assam 786602
RTI Application filed on : 30/09/2014
CPIO replied on : 05/11/2014
First Appeal filed on : 21/11/2014
First Appellate Authority order on : 03/01/2015
Complaint received on : 13/02/2015
Attendance during the hearing on 4.7.2016.
The Complainant was present at the NIC Studio, Tinsukia.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri S. K. Deka, APIO was heard through audio
conferencing.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000096
Attendance during the hearing on 8.8.2016.
The Complainant was present at the NIC Studio, Tinsukia.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri S. K. Deka, APIO was present in person.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
Information sought
This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Complainant, seeking information concerning the calculation with detailed break up for fixed cost & variable cost as per OIL's internal estimate in respect of IFB No. DCT2410P09 & DCT 0456P09. The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds of complaint to the Commission Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and the FAA's order.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000096 Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision Hearing on 4.7.2016 The Complainant stated that the information sought by him was regarding rental of buses by the Respondents. While issuing a tender for the above purpose, the Respondents had mentioned a range within which the interested parties were required to give their quotes. The information sought is regarding the breakup of fixed cost and variable cost as per the internal estimates of the Respondents, based on which the rate range was mentioned in the tender. However, it was denied wrongly by the Respondents under Section 8 (1) (d). The Complainant further submitted that similar information was provided by Shri S. K. Deka, APIO to another RTI applicant on 21.8.2013 vide letter No. CPIO: 8/2 (RTI781)2077. However, the information was denied to him. Shri S. K. Deka, APIO was unable to give any justification for provision of the information to another applicant, while denying similar information to the Complainant. The Complainant wanted to make some written submissions, but was informed that the notice for today's hearing was sent to him on 9.6.2016 and in that notice, it was stated that both the parties may file a written submission to the Commission before the hearing. Since he had chosen not to do so, we did not consider it necessary to adjourn the hearing to allow him more time to file his written submissions.
2. The Respondents stated that the information sought is regarding a tender, based on which contracts for renting of buses were awarded by them in 2011 and the contract period is nearing completion. They reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (d).
CIC/SH/C/2015/000096
3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. Since the matter before us is a complaint registered under Section 18 of the RTI Act, we cannot go into the issue of direction to the Respondents to provide the information sought by the Appellant. The only issue before us is whether action is warranted against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. In the above context, we see no ground to fault the reply dated 5.11.2014 of the CPIO, denying the information under Section 8 (1) (d), endorsed by the FAA. We agree with the First Appellate Authority that disclosure of the information sought by the Complainant, even though after completion of the tender process, could have an impact on future similar tenders to be floated by them, in terms of the offers that are made by interested parties. This is adequate ground for them to claim exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, particularly since they are a commercial entity. Therefore, the only issue that remains for consideration is the Complainant's submission that similar information was disclosed by Shri S. K. Deka, Senior Manager (Legal) and APIO to another RTI applicant and whether that action of Shri Deka and denial of similar information to the Complainant warrants any further action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Since Shri S. K. Deka, APIO was unable to give us a satisfactory explanation regarding why the information was provided to another applicant on 21.8.2013, we would like to give him another opportunity to give his comments on this issue.
August, th
4. In view of the foregoing, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 8 2016 at 10.00 a.m. through videoconferencing. Shri S. K. Deka, Senior Manager (Legal) and APIO is directed to be present for the next hearing on 8.8.2016 and offer his explanation on the above issue. The venue for videoconferencing for the Complainant and the Respondents will be the same as during the hearing today.
CIC/SH/C/2015/000096 Hearing on 8.8.2016
5. The matter came up again today. Shri S. K. Deka, APIO stated that he had indeed provided some information regarding fixed and running charges on 21.8.2013 to one Shri B. G. Rao in response to his RTI application. However, in the case of the Complainant before us, the information was denied by a different officer, Shri P. S. Narayanan, General Manager (C&L) and CPIO. Shri Deka sought to draw a distinction between the information sought by Shri B. G. Rao and the Complainant and explain the different replies on the basis of the same. The Complainant stated that the information was wrongly denied to him and maintained that the information sought in the two cases was not different. He also referred to his written submissions dated 18.7.2016. In these submissions, he has essentially emphasised that in the interest of openness and accountability, it is desirable that business with government agencies is conducted in a way that would stand up to public scrutiny. He has stated that public interest demanded disclosure of the information sought by him. He has also sought to find fault with the order of the FAA.
6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. In so far as the issue of provision of the information sought by the Appellant is concerned, it was disposed of by us vide paragraph 3 of our interim order dated 4.7.2016. In that order, we also upheld the reply dated 5.11.2014 of the CPIO, Shri P. S. Narayanan. Therefore, no further order is needed on the above aspects. With regard to the information provided by Shri Deka to Shri B. G. Rao, we do not see the distinction that Shri Deka sought to highlight between the information sought by Shri Rao and the Complainant. However, we note that the replies dated 21.8.2013 and 5.11.2014 were given by different officers. Further, the matter CIC/SH/C/2015/000096 before us is not the reply dated 21.8.2013 of Shri Deka to Shri B. G. Rao, but the reply dated 5.11.2014 of Shri P. S. Naryanan, CPIO to the Complainant. Since we have already upheld the above mentioned reply dated 5.11.2014, there is no ground for action under Section 20 against the CPIO in this case.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/C/2015/000096