Central Information Commission
Yash Thomas Mannully vs Goa Shipyard Limited on 14 November, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/GOASL/A/2021/649090
In the matter of:
Yash Thomas Mannully
... Appellant
VS
The CPIO
Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL),
Vasco da Gama,
Goa 403802.
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 28/04/2021 CPIO replied on : 25/05/2021 First appeal filed on : 15/06/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 13/07/2021 - not on record. Second Appeal filed on : 18/10/2021 Date of Hearing : 14/11/2022 Date of Decision : 14/11/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: S.S Kamble, AGM (HR) and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information:
1) Provide total number of technical bids received by GSL in response to Tender Ref. No. GSL/GES/TUG/E/Steering Gear dated 27-11-2020.
2) Provide copies of all the technical bids received in respect of the above stated tender. Also provide a copy of the purchase order issued in respect of the said tender.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 2 as the information was incorrectly denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. However, he was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 29.10.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED236984015IN.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 25.05.2021. He further submitted that the appellant was not a bidder and hence, the information cannot be given to him even if the tender process is complete.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 2 where the information was denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act stating that the information sought falls under the realm of commercial confidence of the bidders.
During the hearing, it was enquired from the CPIO as to whether the tender process is complete, to which he submitted that the process is complete as on date.
It is observed that the tender process has since been completed and hence information sought can be provided. The Commission draws reference to the judgment of the Division bench of Jharkhand High Court, in State of Jharkhand v. Navin Kumar Sinhga and Anr., AIR 2008 Jharkhand 19 dated 08/08/2007, held as under:
"26........The question therefore that falls for consideration is as to whether disclosure of various documents submitted by the bidders is a trade secret or commercial confidence or intellectual property. Prima facie, we are of the view that once a decision is taken in the matter of grant of tender, there is no justification to keep it secret. People have a right to know the basis on which the decision has been taken. If tenders are invited by the public authority and on the basis of tender documents, the eligibility of a tenderor or a bidder is decided, then those tender documents cannot be secret, that too, after the tender is decided and work order is issued on the ground that it will amount to disclosure of trade secret or commercial confidence. If the authorities of Government refuse to disclose the document, the very purpose of the Act will be frustrated. Moreover, disclosure of information, sought for by the petitioner, cannot and shall not be a trade secret or commercial confidence; rather 2 disclosure of such information shall be in public interest, inasmuch as it will show the transparency in the activities of the Government.
27. ......... Since the tender process is completed and contract has been awarded, it will not influence the contract. Besides the above, a citizen has a right to know the genuineness of a document submitted by the tenderer in the matter of grant of tender for consultancy work or for any other work. As noticed above, the tender process is completed and the contract has been awarded, therefore, it will not influence the contract. In any view of the matter, the document in question cannot be treated as trade secret or commercial confidence. In our considered opinion a contract entered into by the public authority with a private person cannot be treated as confidential after completion of contract."
In the above case, the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court had categorically stated that the contract entered into by the public authority with a private person cannot be treated as confidential after the tendering process is over & especially after the conclusion of the contract. It was also categorically mentioned that people have a right to know the basis on which the decision has been taken.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the sought for information on point no. 2 to the appellant within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO should note that he is at liberty to mask any third party information applying Sec 10 of the RTI Act which according to him is sensitive and not disclosable under the provisions of the RTI Act as long as the masking of any information is suitably justified in the reply.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ$भ&मा'णत स)या*पत & त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3