Central Information Commission
Jayaram Venkatesan vs Mmtc Limited on 25 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MMTCL/A/2020/674302
Jayaram Venkatesan ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
MMTC Ltd., RTI Cell,
Chennai House, 6 Esplanade,
Chennai - 600108, Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/12/2021
Date of Decision : 21/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 20/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 17/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 16/03/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 11.01.2020 seeking the following information:
"Please provide the price at which Palm Oil pouches were procured by MMTC from the supplier and the name of the suppliers to MMTC for the following tenders of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation.
BS3-011950-2018 BS3-047300-2018 BS3-011976-2019 BS3-005923-2019 BS3-044704-2019 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2020. Subsequently, the CPIO denied the information to the Appellant on 20.02.2020 under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In regard to his first appeal, FAA's order dated 16.03.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO. He further harped on the fact that information sought was a public document and does not pose a threat to commercial confidence, trade secrets, intellectual properties or competitive position of any third party. He also contested that the information sought by him involves larger public interest.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Sudhir Kapur, General Manager & CPIO along with E Malarvanan, AGM & PIO (Chennai) present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the denial of information by the CPIO under the garb of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that averred tenders had already been concluded at the time of receipt of RTI application and as such information should have been provided to him and also put in public domain. He 2 further invited attention of the bench towards the contents of his instant Appeal relevant portion of which is as follows -
".......It has come to our attention that MMTC in these tenders to TamilNadu civil supplies corporation have acted as a proxy for the middlemen from which they procured and has passed bulk of the profit to middlemen who itself is a competitor in their bids to TNCSC. Therefore, a larger level collusion is said to have taken place resulting in loss to both the exchequer and also to MMTC. Therefore, the information I seek involves larger public interest as well. The data that I seek in the RTI provides additional evidences that I can share to the investigating agencies, which will help them in the investigation to uncover the Corruption that seems to have taken place......"
The PIO submitted that although the process of averred tender had reached finality at that time, however the information has been denied as it contains elements of commercial confidence and trade secrets. He further submitted that their role as a participant in the tender process was to buy Palm oil from the various suppliers and supply it to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. Lastly, he apprised the Commission that to secure the details of intended suppliers/tenderers, such information cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
The Appellant while rebutting the PIO's submission contested that he has merely sought for the names of the suppliers and price at which the Palm Oil was procured by a public authority, disclosure of which involves larger public interest. He further apprised the Commission that in response to his similar RTI application in 2019, the CPIO had furnished the names of the suppliers and price quoted.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is completely inappropriate as the disclosure of the amount at which a pubic authority is sealing a tender or the mere disclosure of the name of the suppliers who have entered into a contractual agreement with the Govt. of India at the cost of the public exchequer cannot be said to be detrimental to the competitive position of these suppliers. As a matter of fact, information of such nature should ordinarily be placed in the 3 public domain once the tender process is over in keeping with the tenets of probity and transparency to be maintained in the commercial transactions of the public authorities.
In this regard, a full bench decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000964 dated 03.09.2009 on the imperativeness of transparency in similar forms of contractual agreements of public authorities is of relative importance as it adds perspective to the right to information of the Appellant in the instant case; the relevant extract of the averred decision is stated hereunder:
"18. Planning Commission ⎯ which has a separate Department / Section dedicated to Public Private Partnerships and is known to have prepared the Model PPP Agreements for the Government ⎯ has categorically stated that any plea of confidentiality of those documents (PPP Agreements) was insubstantial and deserved to be rejected. Comptroller & Auditor General of India also advised the Commission that there was no room for confidentiality in matters such as PPP Agreements.
xxx
20....Such private parties frequently win the right to participate in the PPP Agreement in open competition, or are selected for their exclusive and extra-ordinary competence in specified areas of activity. In either case, it is necessary that there is complete transparency about whether the selection of the Private Partner by the Government was made correctly and carefully and, that all aspects of the issue ⎯ environmental, social and human included ⎯ were seriously considered by the Government in making the choice. A matter of such critical importance to the country cannot be negotiated and settled behind the back of its people. The third- party cannot take recourse to the argument of its vital commercial and technical details being disclosed to its rivals for the simple reason that it is the consideration of these very details that won him the competitive bidding in the first place. It is important and crucial that the choice of the Private Partner by the Government is not cloaked in undue secrecy.
xxx
25....These Agreements would involve commitment of the Government's financial and physical resources. If PPPs were not the mode of project execution, the entire operation would then be conducted by the Government and would have been subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, and all information thereof would be disclosable. It would be vain to argue that functions which were earlier transparent when performed by Government exclusively, should become opaque now that these are to be performed through PPP. This will amount to reversal of transparency and would be antithetical to public interest." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, the Commission finds no reason to withhold the information from the Appellant in the instant case. The CPIO is hereby directed to 4 provide the available information as sought for in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5