B. D. Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 24 May, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 30]

Central Information Commission

B. D. Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 24 May, 2021

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                             के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2019/146809

Mr. B. D. Singh                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम
CPIO, Steel Authority of India                            ... ितवादी /Respondent
Steel Plant, Bokaro

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17-04-2019            FA    : 24-06-2019          SA       : 25-09-2019

CPIO : 15-05-2019           FAO : 08-08-2019            Hearing : 18-05-2021

                                   ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Steel Authority of India, Bokaro seeking following information:-

1. "Copy of test report against PO No. 4510050295.

2. On what basis consignment of same item was supplied by other firm against PO No. 4510050294."

2. The CPIO responded on 15-05-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 24-06-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 08-08- 2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. B. D. Singh attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Ms. Anju Singh, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

Page 1 of 3

4. The appellant stated that the CPIO has not provided complete copy of the test report which pertains to his own firm.

5. The respondent expressed no objection in permitting the appellant to inspect the test report which pertains to his own firm. However, she claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(d) in sharing the information on point no. 2 which pertains to a third party firm.

Decision:

6. This Commission observes that the appellant is entitled to inspect the test report which pertains to his own firm and therefore, the CPIO is directed to permit inspection of his test report(s) and also to take photo copies of these reports on admissible charges on the mutually convenient date and time, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. However, this Commission upholds the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 with regard to denial of test report(s) belonging to a third party firm having commercial implications on the business interests of the public authority in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter. With regard to non-disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 24-11-2014 rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 85/2010 & CM Nos. 156/2010 & 5560/2011 titled as Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, wherein, it has been 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) 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 Page 2 of 3 disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.


                                                              नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                         Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज            ा
                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                       Information Commissioner (सू
                                                      दनांक / Date :18-05-2021

Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)



Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      Steel Authority of India
      Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan,
      Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand-827001

2.    Mr. B. D. Singh




                                                                      Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission