Central Information Commission
Ashok B Naganagoudar vs Department Of Millitary Affairs on 3 March, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DPTMA/A/2023/652806
CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/612229
Ashok B Naganagoudar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Headquarters, Karnataka Naval
Area, Naval Base, Karwar - 581308 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025
Date of Decision : 28.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned appeals have been clubbed together for disposal
through common order as these are based on similar RTI applications of the
same Appellant against same Respondent.
CIC/DPTMA/A/2023/652806
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 31.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 04.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 22
"...(a) Provided details and number of cases taken Under Minor Head 800
(e) for High Tea, Lunch and Dinner during the period from 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2023.
(b) Provide Mode of tendering and Information / Name of Vendors Firm being selected along with copy of Work Order issued for preparation of High Tea, Lunch and Dinner for VIP Visits from the period 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2023.
I request you to follow Section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005 for providing information/providing with photo copies of supporting documents related to the information requested above.
Below items (4.1 to 4.10) are for your kind information and consideration:
4.1 As per section 6(2) of the RTI Act 2005, "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him."
4.2 As per section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, the requested information is held by another public authority, I request the PIO to transfer the application or part of it within FIVE days and immediately inform me about such transfer.
4.3 As per section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to provide the requested information within 30 days.
4.4 As per section 7(2) of the RTI Act 2005, In case of no decision received within 30 days, the PIO shall be deemed to have refused the request.
4.5 As per section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, there are further fee required to provide the requested information, I request the PIO to inform me of the additional fee amount along with the calculations made to arrive at the amount.
4.6 As per section 7(8) of the RTI Act 2005, In case of rejection of my application, I kindly request you to provide the reason for such rejection and not just quote a section of RTI. Also, I request you to provide the details of Appellate authority.Page 2 of 22
4.7 As per section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to provide the requested information in the form in which it is sought.
4.8 As per section 8(2) of the RTI Act 2005, "Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."
4.9 As per section 10(2) of the RTI Act 2005, In case the requested information is exempt from disclosure by any other law, I request you to provide that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under RTI Act 2005. FYI: "The RTI Act has over-riding effect vis-A-vis other laws inasmuch as the provisions of the RTI Act would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act "
4.10 As per section 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request""
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 31.07.2023 stating as under:
"1 'Details' not stated w.r.t. information sought. Further, the number of cases initiated under Minor Head 800(e) is 35.
2 Requisite details of VIP has not been specified in the query."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 22.08.2023, held as under:
"1 Specific details/information required by you has not been intimated for provisioning of information. Further, the number of cases initiated under Minor Head 800(e) is 35.
2 Requisite details of VIP/ event has not been clearly mentioned for purpose of provisioning the information. In addition, the copy of 'Work Order' requested is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 being information related to commercial confidence. In other Page 3 of 22 words, the disclosure of information sought, even though tender process has been completed, could have an impact on future similar tenders to be floated, so as to affect the competitive position."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 24.02.2025 has been filed by the appellant which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"1. Appellant submits that The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for a legal right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The present RTI was filed for seeking information the details and number of cases taken Under Minor Head 800 (e) for High Tea, Lunch and Dinner during the period from 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2023.
(a) That, The CPIO and the First Appellate Authority provided the total number of 35 cases taken Under Minor Head 800 (e) for High Tea, Lunch and Dinner during the period from 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2023 and failed to provide the details of 35 cases taken Under Minor Head 800 (e) and questioned the Appellant that 2 Specific details / information required by you has not been intimated for provisioning of information. Hon'ble Information Commissioner is requested to direct the Respondent to provide details of all 35 Cases taken Under Minor Head 800 (e).
(b) Appellant in Para 3(b) requested to Provide Mode of tendering and Information / Name of Vendors Firm being selected along with copy of Work Order issued for preparation of High Tea, Lunch and Dinner for VIP Visits from the period 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2023. The CPIO on silly technical grounds refused information by citing excuse that "Requisite details of VIP / event has not been mentioned for purpose of provisioning the information" when the CPIO has provided the total number of 35 cases taken Under Minor Head 800 (e). The First Appellate Authority gave excuse by citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 being information related to commercial confidence. In other words, the disclosure sought, even though tender process has been completed could have an impact on Page 4 of 22 future similar tenders to be floated, so as to affect the competitive position.
Appellant submits that the rates of all the Commodities i.e. Oil, Cereals, Masalas, Vegetables, milk etc. are going on increasing and in July 2023, the Karnataka government allowed the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) to increase the price of Nandini milk by ₹3 per Liter and again in Jul 2024 ₹2 was hiked now the question arises how will the Vendor quote the same price even after the increase rates in commodities. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ashok Kumar Goel Vs Public Information Officer, VAT, LPA 190/2012 in Para 8 as observed :-
It is trite law that insofar as evaluation of tenders and award of work in connection with public works is involved, the competent authority must do its exercise in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. Such a procedure has to be transparent. This is also based on the principle that the public largesse are not to be distributed by the Government functionaries at their whims and fancies and all have equal right to be considered and all eligible persons have to be considered for award of public works. Thus the method of evaluation of tender has to be transparent. In a particular case, if it is found that the exercise done was not in accordance with the tender conditions or was arbitrary, the same can be set aside / quashed. "It is in this light, that the right to know the basis of tender documents, the eligibility of a tenderer or the manner in which bid is decided comes within the domain of larger public interest."
Hon'ble Central Information Commission in Mr. Ajay Chadha vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi, CIC/DS/A/2013/001664 as observed :-
It being so, the information is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. "However, limited financial information as to the financial quotation/price quoted by the third party in the said tender be provided to the appellant, as the disclosure of the same, at this belated stage is not going to cause any harm to any of the parties."Page 5 of 22
Jharkhand High Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand And Anr. vs Navin Kumar Singha And Anr. on 8 August, 2007 where the aspect of Sec 8(1)(d) was discussed in detail. The operative part of the decision is extracted below:
"26. Section 8(1)(d) is relevant so far instant case is concerned which, inter alia, provides that the authority may refuse to give information relating to commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. The question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether disclosure of various documents submitted by the bidders 4 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 tender or a bidder is decided, then those tender documents cannot be kept 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 disclosure of such information shall be in public interest, inasmuch as it will show the transparency in the activities of the Government.
2. That, Hon'ble Information Commissioner is humbly requested to direct Respondents to furnish information to Appellant Ashok B Naganagoudar free of cost Under Section 7(6) of the Act 2005 after going through the above written submission made by the Appellant to bring transparency and accountability in functioning of Government Departments. Further, the other departments of Indian Navy provided the Quotations of all the Firms participated Bid including Invoice and Contingent Bill forwarded to Controller of Defence Account to Appellant and if the Hon'ble Information Commissioners directs Appellant to submit the evidence of providing Commercial information by Naval Dockyard, Mumbai and INS Gomati Page 6 of 22 related to purchase of materials and services rendered onboard Naval War Ships. Here the question arises why the CPIO and First Appellate Authority are refusing to furnish documents / information and citing excuse by citing Section 8 (1)(d) of RTI Act 2005."
A written submission dated 21.02.2025 has been filed by the respondent which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
4. On bare perusal of the RTI application, following are pertinent:-
(a) The Appellant is on hunt for information through the route of RTIs. The information provided by INS Kadamba pertains to commercial information and disclosure of which would harm the confidence of firms, unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information and the same is exempted under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) The information sought by Appellant appears to be an impractical demands under RTI Act for seeking disclosure of all and sundry information adversely affecting the efficiency of the administration and resulting in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
(c) The appellant's intention is not understood as the information being sought does not include larger public interest.
5 On deliberate examination, it is observed that the appellant in query at Para 4(a) of Annexure-R1 has sought for details of cases taken under Minor Head 800(e) without specifying what details were required by him. It is pertinent to mention that the number of cases taken under Minor Head 800(e) for High Tea, Lunch and Dinner during the period from 01 Aug 21 to 31 Mar 23 is 35.
6. Further, the appellant in query at Para 4(b) of Annexure-R1 has sought information w.r.t. mode of tendering, name of vendors being selected and Work Order copy w.r.t. High Hea, Lunch and Dinner for VIP visits during the period from 01 Aug 21 to 31 Mar 23. Here also the appellant did not categorically stated any information w.r.t. VIPs regarding the information sought by him i.e., mode of tendering, name of vendors being selected and Work Order copy w.r.t. High Tea, Lunch and Dinner.
Page 7 of 227. Accordingly, reply to the RTI application dated 09 Jun 23 was rendered to the appellant on 31 Jul 23 (Annexure R5) i.e. within 30 days from the receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Brief on disposal of First Appeal by FAA (Respondent)
8. The appellant being aggrieved by the RTI reply rendered to him on 31 Jul 23, has preferred to file Appeal to the First Appellate Authority (i.e. FOK) on 04 Aug 23 (Annexure R6) on the ground that APIO has given him incomplete information. Further, the appellant in query at Para 8(a) of Annexure-R6 has plainly stated that "provide details" without specifying what 'details are required by him' and similarly in query at Para 8(b) of Annexure-R6 also the appellant has not specified the 'VIP' whose details w.r.t. work order has been sought.
9. It is pertinent to mention that the information regarding the Work Orders requested by the appellant is a information in the nature of commercial confidence, which is exempted under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, following reply to the RTI appeal dated 04 Aug 23 was rendered to the appellant on 22 Aug 23 (Annexure R7) i.e. within 30 days from the receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
xxx Comments by Respondent(s)
10. The appellant has not made any specific grounds with respect to second appeal under reference. The Public Authority is not expected to interpret and create information under RTI Act, 2005. Further, the appellant's intention is not understood as the information being sought does not include larger public interest.
11. Few extracts of CIC judgments on disclosure of information pertains to commercial confidence by various courts (which were referred while disposing of RTI Application and RTI Appeal) are appended below for clarity:-
(a) The Central Information Commission in the case titled Shri KS Periyaswamy Vs Shri R Ramesh, Pr. Scientific Officer, DGQ, Ministry of Defence (Annexure R8) has stated that "....... Apart from this there is no doubt that the nature of the information requested by the Appellant is also commercial No firm would like that the supply orders received by it and its magnitude, inspection notes and so on be brought out in public.
Potentially of such disclosure to affect the firms competitive position and commercial interest is considerable....."
Page 8 of 22(b) The Central Information Commission in the case titled Mr debajit Dutta Vs Oil India Limited (Oil) (Annexure R9) has stated that ".... We agree with the First Appellate Authority that disclosure of the information sought by the Complainant, even though after completion of the tender process, could have an impact on future similar tenders to be floated by them, in terms of the offers that are made by interested parties. This is inadequate ground for them to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, particularly since they are a commercial entity...."
12. The second appeal dated 24 Nov 23 appears to have been filed after 92 days from the rejection of First Appeal by the First Appellate Authority on 22 Aug 23 (ideally, the appellant is supposed to file Second Appeal within 90 days of reply by the First Appellate Authority), thus there observed a delay of 02 days. Hence, the Second Appeal is time barred from Respondent(s) point of view.
PRAYER
13. In view of the above submission, it is humbly prayed that instant Second Appeal be dismissed being devoid of merit and not adhering the timeline for filing of Second Appeal by the appellant."
CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/612229 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 25.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 23.11.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 19.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.03.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(a) Reason for Dis-Qualifying of Two Vendors namely M/s International Federation of Yoga Professionals and M/s Titli Event and Entertainment in Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3533827. (Copy of Bid and Technical Evaluation at Annexure - A)
(b) Name of all the Representatives attended Pre-Bid Meeting on 13/06/2023 at 1600 Hours on behalf of Firms.Page 9 of 22
(c) Copy of Documents Uploaded by the Firms M/s GGR Enterprises, M/s Kamakshi Enterprises and M/s Samruddhi Enterprise to proof their 2 Years past Experience in the same field.
(d) Individual Rates Quoted by the Firms as per the Scope of Work (Copy of Financial Evaluation enclosed at Annexure - B) I request you to follow Section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005 for providing information/providing with photo copies of supporting documents related to the information requested above.
4.1 As per section 6(2) of the RTI Act 2005, "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him."
4.2 As per section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, the requested information is held by another public authority, I request the PIO to transfer the application or part of it within FIVE days and immediately inform me about such transfer.
4.3 As per section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to provide the requested information within 30 days.
4.4 As per section 7(2) of the RTI Act 2005, In case of no decision received within 30 days, the PIO shall be deemed to have refused the request.
4.5 As per section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, there are further fee required to provide the requested information, I request the PIO to inform me of the additional fee amount along with the calculations made to arrive at the amount.
4.6 As per section 7(8) of the RTI Act 2005, In case of rejection of my application, I kindly request you to provide the reason for such rejection and not just quote a section of RTI. Also, I request you to provide the details of Appellate authority.
4.7 As per section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005, I request the PIO to provide the requested information in the form in which it is sought.
4.8 As per section 8(2) of the RTI Act 2005, "Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to Page 10 of 22 information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."
4.9 As per section 10(2) of the RTI Act 2005, In case the requested information is exempt from disclosure by any other law, I request you to provide that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under RTI Act 2005. FYI: "The RTI Act has over-riding effect vis-Ã-vis other laws inasmuch as the provisions of the RTI Act would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI Act "
4.10 As per section 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request""
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.10.2023 stating as under:
"A Provision of reasons are beyond the purview of RTI Act, 2005. The information sought by you is in the nature of seeking explanation/reasons which does not qualify as 'Information' under Sec 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence denied. Further, the firms who were disqualified were informed w.r.t. their disqualification on GeM portal.
B The firms have refused to divulge the name of the reps view their physical safety and security. Hence, denied.
C & D The firms have refused to disclose the information sought. In addition, the document requested is exempted from disclosure under Sec 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005 being information related to comme confidence. In other words, the disclosure of information sought, even though tender process have been completed could have an impact on future similar tenders to be floated, so as to affect competitive positions. Further, during contract also the bidders have given non-disclosure agreement to IN."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 19.12.2023, held as under:
"A Provision of reasons are beyond the purview of RTI Act, 2005. The information sought by you is in the nature of seeking Page 11 of 22 explanation/reasons which does not qualify as 'Information' under Sec 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence denied. Further, the firms who were disqualified were informed w.r.t. their disqualification on GeM portal.
B The firms have refused to divulge the name of the reps view their physical safety and security. Hence, denied.
C&D The firms have refused to disclose the information sought. In addition, the document requested is exempted from disclosure under Sec 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 being information related to commercial confidence. In other words, the disclosure of information sought, even though tender process have been completed could have an impact on future similar tenders to be floated, so as to affect competitive positions. The bidders, whilst entering into contract with IN had given non- disclosure agreement."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 24.02.2025 has been filed by the appellant which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
1. Appellant submits that The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for a legal right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The present RTI was filed for seeking information in Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3533827 for Conduct of International Day of Yoga at INS Kadamba and to check the transparency in issuing tender to M/s Kamakshi Enterprises.
(a) Appellant sought reason for disqualifying of two vendors namely M/s International Federation of Yoga Professionals and M/s Titli Event and Entertainment in Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3533827 for Conduct of International Day of Yoga at INS Kadamba. The CPIO and the First Appellate Authority refused to give the copy 2 of reason uploaded on GEM Portal for disqualifying the above vendors by the Purchase / Tender Committee when the said records are held with Logistic Officer (Public Authority), INS Kadamba and denied information by citing excuse that Provision of reasons are beyond the purview of RTI Act, 2005. The information sought by you is in the nature of seeking explanation / reasons which does not qualify as 'Information' Under Section 2 (f) Page 12 of 22 of RTI Act. Hence denied. Further stated that firm who were disqualified were informed w.r.t their disqualification on GEM Portal. Here Appellant wanted to make it clear that information sought was the document uploaded by the Logistic Department in GEM Portal giving reasons and grounds for disqualification of the Vendors which is an Public Document and also stated by the CPIO and First Appellate that firm who were disqualified were informed w.r.t their disqualification on GEM Portal . It is relevant herein to rely on the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under :
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides: "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, 3 advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
(b) Appellant sought Names of all the Representative attended Pre-Bid Meeting on 13/06/2023 at 1600 Hours on behalf of Firms which was denied by giving and seeking excuse that Firms have refused to divulge the name of the reps view their physical safety and security. According to Defence Procurement Manual (DPM) Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance register has to be maintained by the Department and the Minutes of Pre-Bid Meeting by CNC / Tender Committee as to be uploaded in GEM Portal which are available in the records of the Public Authority and firms are not authorized to refuse to share information which are held with Public Authority. Also by making the above statement by the Firm it clearly proves that India is not safe for the common person. Appellant further submits that such statement by the CPIO and First Appellate Authority gives strong apprehension of mal-practice and raises question of transparency and accountability of public Authority / Servant.
(c) Appellant sought Copy of Documents Uploaded by the Firms M/s GGR Enterprises, M/s Kamakshi Enterprises and M/s Samruddhi Enterprise to proof their 2 Years Past Experience in the same field and Individuals rates quoted by the Firms as per the Page 13 of 22 Scope of Work which was denied by giving and seeking excuse that Firms have refused to disclose the information sought. In addition, the document requested is exempted from disclosure Under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 being information related to commercial confidence. In other 4 words, the disclosure of information sought, even though tender process have been completed could have an impact on future similar tenders to be floated, so as to affect competitive positions. Further, during contract also the bidders have given non-disclosure agreement to IN. Appellant submits that according to the GST Certificate Firm M/s GGR Enterprise was registered on 07/07/2022 and even have not completed One Year during the participation of Bid and was been declared Qualified and selected by the Purchase / Tender Committee in the GEM Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3533827. (Online Copy of GST Registration of M/s GGR Enterprise is enclosed at Annexure -A, Page No. 7 - 8). Here the question arises of transparency and accountability when the Bid Details clearly mentions 2 Years of Past Experience Required for same/similar service. (Copy of GEM Bid is enclosed at Annexure - B, Page No. 9 -14). Here, the question arises how the Purchase / Tender Committee selected M/s GGR Enterprise when the Firm is Technically not qualified for the Work. Further, the rates of the Commodities are going on increasing and in July 2023, the Karnataka government allowed the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) to increase the price of Nandini milk by ₹3 per Liter and again in Jul 2024 ₹2 was hiked now the question arises will the Vendor will quote the same price even after the increase rates in commodities. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ashok Kumar Goel Vs Public Information Officer, VAT, LPA 190/2012 in Para 8 as observed :-
It is trite law that insofar as evaluation of tenders and award of work in connection with public works is involved, the competent authority must do its exercise in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner. Such a procedure has to be transparent. This is also based on the principle that the 5 public largesse are not to be distributed by the Government functionaries at their whims and fancies and all have equal right to be considered and all eligible persons have to be considered for award of public works. Thus the method of evaluation of tender has to be transparent. In a particular case, if it is found that the exercise done was not in accordance with the tender conditions or was arbitrary, the same can be set aside / quashed. "It is in this light, that the right to know the basis of tender documents, the eligibility of a tenderer or the manner in which bid is decided comes within the domain of larger public interest."
Hon'ble Central Information Commission in Mr. Ajay Chadha vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi, CIC/DS/A/2013/001664 as observed :-Page 14 of 22
It being so, the information is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. "However, limited financial information as to the financial quotation/price quoted by the third party in the said tender be provided to the appellant, as the disclosure of the same, at this belated stage is not going to cause any harm to any of the parties."
Jharkhand High Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand And Anr. vs Navin Kumar Singha And Anr. on 8 August, 2007 where the aspect of Sec 8(1)(d) was discussed in detail. The operative part of the decision is extracted below :
"26. Section 8(1)(d) is relevant so far instant case is concerned which, inter alia, provides that the authority may refuse to give information relating to commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
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 tender or a bidder is decided, then those tender documents cannot be kept secret, that too, after the 6 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 2 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 disclosure of such information shall be in public interest, inasmuch as it will show the transparency in the activities of the Government.
2. That, Hon'ble Commission is humbly requested to direct Respondents furnish information to Appellant Ashok B Naganagoudar free of cost Under Section 7(6) of the Act 2005 after going through the above written submission made by the Appellant to check the transparency for issuing Tender in the Government Department. Also direct the Respondents to provided under mentioned documents as mention by the CPIO and First Appellate Authority in their reply on RTI Application and First Appel :-
Page 15 of 22(a) Letter issued by the Firm to the Department for refusing to divulge the name of the representative view their physical safety and security.
(b) Non-Disclosure Agreement submitted by the Bidders / Firms to Indian Navy during Contract and was uploaded in GEM Portal.
(c) According to Bid Document required from seller in case any bidder is seeking exemption from Experience / Turnover Criteria, the supporting documents to prove his eligibility for exemption must be uploaded for evaluation by the buyer in the case of GGR Enterprise and other Firms seeking exemption."
A written submission dated 21.02.2025 has been filed by the respondent which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"...3. On bare perusal of the RTI application, following are pertinent:-
(a) The Appellant is on hunt for information through the route of RTIs. The information provided by INS Kadamba pertains to commercial information and disclosure of which would harm the confidence of firms, unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information and the same is exempted under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) The information sought by Appellant appears to be an impractical demands under RTI Act for seeking disclosure of all and sundry information adversely affecting the efficiency of the administration and resulting in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
(c) It is pertinent to mention that the reasons for disqualifying two firms (i.e., M/s International Federation of Yoga Professionals and M/s Titli Event & Entertainment) mentioned in the RTI application were intimated to respective firms on GeM portal (Annexure-R3). Hence, the intention of the appellant in seeking reasons for disqualification of two firms is not understood as the information being sought does not include larger public interest.
4. Further, on detailed and holistic examination of the information sought, it is understood that the information sought contains details of Third party. Accordingly. Third party notices were issued to three firms namely M/s Kamakshi Enterprises Karwar (Annexure R4), M/s Samruddhi Enterprises, Karwar (Annexure R5) and M/s GGR Enterprises, Chendia, Karwar (Annexure R6) (qualified bidders who were participated in the bidding process) under Sec 11 of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the firms namely M/s GGR Enterprises, Karwar (Annexure R7), M/s Samruddhi Enterprises, Karwar (Annexure R8) and M/s Kamakshi Enterprises Page 16 of 22 Karwar (Annexure R9) have forwarded their objections i.e., not to disclose the information to the appellant.
5. Accordingly, on holistic examination of the RTI application dated 15 Sep 23 at par with CIC Judgments quoted below, a suitable reply as mentioned below was rendered to the appellant on 25 Oct 23 (Annexure-R10) i.e. within 30 days from the receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005- xxx Brief on disposal of First Appeal by FAA (Respondent)
6. The appellant being aggrieved by the RTI reply rendered on 28 Oct 23 preferred to file appeal to the First Appellate Authority (i.e., FOK) on 23 Nov 23 (Annexure R11) on the ground that APIO has given him incomplete information (received by the Respondent Authority on 01 Dec 23). Further, Third party notices were again issued to three firms namely M/s GGR Enterprises, Chendia, Karwar (Annexure R12), M/s Kamakshi Enterprises Karwar (Annexure R13) and M/s Samruddhi Enterprises, Karwar (Annexure R14) under Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005.
Subsequently, the firms i.e., M/s Kamakshi Enterprises Karwar (Annexure R15), M/s Samruddhi Enterprises, Karwar (Annexure R16) and M/s GGR Enterprises, Chendia, Karwar (Annexure R17) have forwarded their objections i.e., not to disclose the information to the appellant.
Accordingly, the reply as mentioned below to the RTI appeal dated 23 Nov 23 was rendered to the appellant on 19 Dec 23 (Annexure R18) i.e. within 30 days from the receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
xxx Comments by Respondent(s)
7. It is intimated that Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure R19) pertains to exemption from disclosure of information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party, unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. The issue has been dealt elaborately by the judgments at Annexure R20 and Annexure R21 respectively, which states non-disclosure of information under Sec 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 and further there are divergent views by the courts w.r.t. non-disclosure of contract agreement.
8. The appellant has not made any specific grounds with respect to second appeal under reference. The public Authority is not expected to interpret and create information under RTI Act, 2005. Further, the appellant's intention is not understood as the information being sought does not include larger public interest.
Page 17 of 229. Few extracts of CIC judgments on disclosure of information pertains to commercial confidence by various courts (which were referred while disposing of RTI Application and RTI Appeal) and relevant extracts of the same are appended in succeeding paragraphs:-
10. The relevant extract of judgment (Annexure R20) is reproduced below:-
The Delhi High Court's decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Shri Chander Sekhar (LPA No. 900/2010), was also of the view that the bidders in the technical part may reveal to the tender calling institution their technology and processes evolved and developed by them and which technology and processes may not otherwise be in public domain and which the bidder may not want revealed to the competitors and which technology/processes the bidder may be using works for the other clients also and which technology/processes if revealed to the competitors may lead to the bidder losing the competitive edge in subsequent awards of contracts. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
-
(a) 10. The vendor's object is to get the bidders to bid "blind" in the hope that then they will bid more than they would if they knew how far other bidders had gone. Additionally, from each bidder's point of view his own bid is confidential and not to be disclosed to any other bidder, and he makes his bid in the expectation, encouraged by the invitation to submit a sealed bid, that his bid will not be disclosed to a rival. If, therefore, a rival has disclosed to him by the vendor the amount of another's bid and uses that confidential information to pitch his own bid enough to outbid the other, this is totally inconsistent with the basis on which each bidder has been invited to bid, and the rival's bid is not a good bid; likewise if the rival adopts a formula that necessarily means that he is making use of what should be confidential information (viz. the bid of another) in composing his own bid.
In such a case, the amount of the other's bid is being constructively divulged to him. The process of inviting tenders has an element of secrecy since nobody knows what would be the bid of the competitor, everyone will try to show preparedness for the best of the terms which will be acceptable to the institution calling the tenders...
11. .....If it were to be held that a bidder by virtue of participating in the tender becomes entitled to all particulars in the bids of all the bidders, the possibility of unscrupulous businessmen participating in the tender merely for acquiring such information, cannot be ruled out. Such disclosure may lead to the competitors undercutting in future bids. We may at Page 4 of 6 this stage notice that the Freedom of Information Act prevalent in United States of America as well as the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 in force in United Kingdom, both crave out an exception qua trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and which is privileged or confidential. The tests laid down in those jurisdictions also, is of "if disclosure of information is likely to impair government's ability to obtain necessary Page 18 of 22 information in future or to cause substantial harm to competitive position of person from whom information is obtained". It has been held that unless persons having necessary information are assured that it will remain confidential, they may decline to cooperate with officials and the ability of government to make intelligent wellinformed decisions will be impaired. Yet another test of whether the information submitted with the bids is confidential or not is of "Whether such information is generally available for public perusal" and of whether such information "is customarily made available to the public by the business submitter". If it is not so customarily made available, it is treated as confidential.
13. What thus emerges is that a balance has to be struck between the principle of promoting honest and open government by ensuring public access to information created by the government on the one hand and the principle of confidentiality breach whereof is likely to cause substantial harm to competitive position of the person from whom information is obtained and the disclosure impairing the government's ability to obtain necessary information in future on the other hand....
14. Questions also arise as to the information contained in the bids/tenders of the unsuccessful tenderers. Often it is found that the same is sought, to know the method of working and to adversely use the said information in future contracts. Generally there can be no other reason for seeking such information.
15. Once we hold that the information of which disclosure is sought relates to or contains information supplied by a third party and which the third party may claim confidential, the third party information procedure laid down in Section 11 of the Act is attracted.
11. The relevant extract of judgment (Annexure R21) is reproduced below:-
"...In the instant case, information sought by the appellant relates to financial/technical bids of third party, which have been treated as confidential by the Respondent Authority and the third party itself........ Having considered aforementioned submissions of the PIO, the Commission is of the view that the information as sought for by the appellant relates to commercial confidence, trade secrets of a third party, the disclosure of which would harm the Page 2 of 6 competitive position of the third party and disclosure of which is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act.
In the instant case, it is evident that the Third party to whom the information relates, have objected to the disclosure of the information in toto. The protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the appellant is able to justify how such disclosure would be in 'larger public interest'. The burden of establishing Page 19 of 22 that the information sought was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, however, shall lie on the PIO.
14. Questions also arise as to the information contained in the bids/tenders of the unsuccessful tenders. Often it is found that the same is sought, to know the method of working and to adversely use the said information in future contracts. Generally there can be no other reason for seeking such information."
12. The second appeal dated 18 Mar 24 appears to have been filed post completion of 90 days from the rejection of First Appeal by the First Appellate Authority on 19 Dec 23 (ideally, the appellant is supposed to file Second Appeal within 90 days of reply by the First Appellate Authority). Hence, the Second Appeal is time barred from Respondent(s) point of view.
PRAYER
13. In view of the above submission, it is humbly prayed that instant Second Appeal be dismissed being devoid of merit and not adhering the timeline for filing of Second Appeal by the appellant."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri N Gautam, APIO present through video-conference.
Appellant at the outset stated that his written submission may be considered for just disposal of these appeal on merits. He further contended the information sought by him has been malafidely denied by the PIO to support the corrupt activities carried out in the Respondent organization. He stated that being an ex-serviceman and citizen of India he is entitled to seek information as sought above.
The respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that a point-wise reply as per RTI Act in each case has already been provided to the appellant in the first instance. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission a revised detailed reply with supportive case laws has been uploaded on the CIC's website. He volunteered to provide a copy of his written submissions to the appellant.Page 20 of 22
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the main premise of instant appeals was denial of information by the respondent and in turn non-receipt of complete records as requested. On the other hand, the respondent while reiterating the contents of his initial replies clarified the factual position vide written submission dated 21.02.2025.
Perusal of records of the case reveals that an adequate replies in terms of the provision of the RTI Act has been provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 31.07.2023, 22.08.2023, 25.10.2023, 22.12.2023 and the Commission upholds the same. Further, the written submission dated 21.02.2025 filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory, which discharge the onus of Respondent in justifying the denial of information under Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act.
Further, the issue flagged by the appellant in his written submissions appears to be a grievance, which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act. He is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance/complaint.
Intervention of the Commission is not required in the instant matters.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of the RTI Act, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of his written submissions dated 21.02.2025 with enclosures, free of charge to the appellant, within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 21 of 22 Copy To:
The FAA, Flag Officer Commanding, Headquarters, Karnataka Naval Area, Naval Base, Karwar - 581308 Page 22 of 22 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)