Central Information Commission
Shri. Md Anwar vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 14 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000524/SG/15641
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000524/SG
Appellant : Mhd. Anwar,
Line no. 12, Azad Nagar, Haldwani,
District Nainital, Uttrakhand
Respondent : Dr. Rajesh Kumar
CPIO & Information Scientist Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences, Manora Peak, Nainital - 263129 RTI application filed on : 02/06/2010 PIO replied : 20/08/2010 First Appeal filed on : 08/10/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 19/10/2010 Second Appeal filed on : 24/01/2011 Brief facts:
The Appellant through his RTI Application written in Hindi dated 2nd June 2010 sought information on 11 points. In his second appeal the Appellant has stated that he is satisfied by reply given on point no. 1, 04, 05, 10 and 11 and has come before this Commission for the following points:-
Sl. Information Sought CPIO Reply 02 Was any tender given for any civil work or repair being Presently the work tender has
undertaken presently or in the past three years? If any tenders are been allotted to M/s Gupta continuing, then provide the details of the contractors and their Constructions, Dehradun. full addresses.
03. With respect to the above please provide certified copies of the Information exempted under tender documents. Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
06. Provide details of the contractors who had applied for the tenders Two tenders were received on the including name and addresses. basis of the advertisement.
07. Tender notice issued and the documents sent to the contractors. Two contractors were issued tenders notices.
08. Total payments given to the contractors till March 2010 (year Details annexure herewith wise)
09. Have the tenders been finalised? If yes, then kindly provide the Tender concluded in October amounts for which work was undertaken by them. 2010 Grounds for First Appeal:
The Complainant was not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, as incomplete and incorrect information was provided to him.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The First Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal on the ground that it was time barred.. Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant is not satisfied from the CPIO's Reply.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Dr. Rajesh Kumar, CPIO & Information Scientist on video conference from NIC-Nainital Studio;
The PIO has refused to give the attested copies of the tender documents claiming exemption under Section 8(!)(j) of the RTI Act. Information relating to tender documents can by no stretch of imagination be considered personal information which could constitute invasion on the privacy of any individual. The Commission cannot accept the exemption claimed by the respondent.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the attested copies of tender documents which were denied to the Appellant before 30 November 2011. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 14 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ANP)