Central Information Commission
Mr.S Giridhar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 27 July, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000062
Appellant Shri S. Giridhar
Public Authority IOCL, Mumbai
Date of hearing 27.07.2012
Date of decision 27.07.2012
Facts :-
Heard today dated 27.07.2012. Appellant not present. ONGC is represented by Shri R. Suresh, GM(Technical Services) and Dr. S.K. Puri, Chief Research Manager.
2. Shri Suresh submits that IOCL had floated a tender dated 9.4.2010 for supply of multi-functional Additive for Branded Gasoline. 09 vendors were asked to supply technical data. After due processing, an order was placed on a particular vendor. In this context, vide RTI application dated 10.5.2010, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"1. The complete details of all the engine test data on the samples submitted by all the potential vendors invited to offer samples.
2. The fuel economy results achieved from each of the samples submitted by the vendors."
3. The CPIO responded to it vide letter dated 15.6.2010 informing the appellant that the selection process was still in process and had not been finalized and, therefore, the requested information could not be supplied to him. The Appellate Authority had also taken the same view in letter dated 10.8.2010.
4. Hence, the present appeal.
5. During the hearing, Shri Suresh submits that the requested technical data has been generated by the vendors at considerable cost and is a third party information for which the appellant is not entitled. He also submits that he cannot part with this data as he is in' non- disclosure agreement' with the parties concerned. However, on a query from the Commission, he submits that procedure prescribed under section 11(1) has not been followed.
6. Suffice to say that the appellant is not entitled to the requested information as the concerned party has spent considerable time, money and resources in generating the data that he is asking for. I wish the CPIO had followed the procedure under section 11(1) of the RTI Act. As noted above, the appellant has not appeared before this Commission to convass his case. Going by experience, third parties generally do not agree for the disclosure of their personal information. Based on this assumption, I am not inclined to remand the matter to CPIO and have decided to dismiss the appeal for the simple reason that the appellant has not placed any material on record to establish that disclosure of requested information would be in the larger public interest, which is the only ground for disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma ) 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.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The General Manager(Plg.) & CPIO, IOCL, HO, Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Aliy Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400051.
2. Shri S. Giridhar, Director, Neopetcon India Pvt. Ltd; Plot No.20, IDA, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037.