Central Information Commission
Mr. Anil Agrawal vs Bsnl, Ambala on 30 January, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/09/00051/AD
Dated January 30, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Anil Agrawal
Name of the Public Authority : BSNL, Ambala
Background
1. The Appellant filed an RTI request dt.22.8.08 with the CPIO, BSNL, Ambala.
He requested for the photocopies of all letters and notesheets pertaining to an APO and requested the following:
i) T.E. No.MM/HR-NIT/2006-2007/20 dated 19.10.06 opened on 21.11.06
ii) APO No.MM/HR-2011/PVC Twin/Tender/2006/07/77 dt.2.1.08 on Surya Cables
iii) AGM (MM) Letter No.MM/HR-2011/PVC Twin/Tender/2006-7/88 dt.2.7.08 to Surya Cables.
The CPIO replied on 22.9.08 stating that the custodian of information has informed that the case related to the APO is under investigation by the Arbitrator appointed to settle the dispute of the concerned party with whom the APO was placed. He added that information includes commercial confidence and trade secrets and that there is no larger public interest involved in disclosure of the information and therefore it is denied under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) & (h) of the RTI Act. The Appellant filed an appeal dt.3.10.08 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. The First Appellate Authority replied on 25.10.08 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the reply of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed a second appeal dated Nil before CIC, which was received by the Commission on 17.11.08.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for January 30, 2009.
3. Mr. V.K. Gupta, GM (NC)/CPIO represented the Public Authority
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had sought letters and notesheets pertaining to the APO starting from the proposal till the appointment of the Arbitrator indicating the reasons for the reduction in tendered quantity from 2769 km of cables to 2077 km. He stated that the quantity of PVC Twin was reduced under the clause no. 5(a) of Section V of bid documents, according to which the purchase will have the right to increase or decrease the tendered quantity upto 25% without any change in the unit price or other terms and conditions at the time of award of contract.
6. The Appellant stated that he has requested for the information in his individual capacity. He appealed on the grounds that he is the partner and GPA holder of the firm Surya Cables on whom the APO was placed and hence the question of a third party does not apply in his case. He also pointed out that the case is not under investigation but referred to Arbitrator under the Arbitrator and Conciliation Act 1996, for settlement of the dispute. Also, there was no commercial confidence and trade secret, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party because a) there was only one bidder in the tender, b) the tender has already been finalized, c) the person seeking the information (the Appellant himself) is the partner and GPA holder of the party whose information has been asked for. Hence Section 8(1)
(d) of the RTI Act does not apply for the reasons given so far. He also argued that as per the appeal, the Section 8(1) (h) also does not apply because there is no investigation and there is no offender.
7. The Commission holds that Arbitral proceedings, being in the nature of any ordinary Court proceedings, demand utmost transparency; hence the plea adopted by the Respondent for non disclosure of documents is unsustainable. Even otherwise, arbitral proceedings are not in the nature of investigation so as to debar accessibility of documents relied upon, since, Arbitration as an Alternate Dispute Redressal Mechanism, does not debar the disclosure of any public document in the similar way like any other Court proceedings. Hence the information sought by the appellant, is clearly out of the ambit of Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 and this averment of the respondent is clearly unsustainable. The Commission also concurs with the submission of the Appellant that Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005 does not apply in this case since the person seeking information is the Appellant himself who is also the partner & GPA holder of the party whose information has been asked for and since he was the only bidder in the tender which had been finalised. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing arguments, the CPIO is directed to furnish the information, as sought by the Appellant, within 15 days from the receipt of this order.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mr. Anil Agrawal B-34, Lajpat Nagar Part-I 1st Floor New Delhi 110 024
2. The PIO & The General Manager (A) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o Chief General Manager Haryana Telecom Circle Ambala 133 001
3. The Appellate Authority & The Chief General Manager Telecom Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited O/o Chief General Manager Haryana Telecom Circle Ambala 133 001
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC