Central Information Commission
Mr.Parbodh Chanderbali vs Ministry Of Railways on 29 July, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000727
Date of Hearing : July 29, 2011
Date of Decision : July 29, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Parbodh Chander Bali
H.No. 16, Shiv Nagar
Batala Road
Amrtisar - 143001.
Punjab.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
HLL Lifecare Limited]
Mahilamandiram Road
Poojappura
Thiruvananthapuram - 695012.
Respondent was not present.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000727
ORDER
Adjunct to the CIC Order No.CIC/AD/A/2011/000727 dated June 29, 2011.
Background
1. The decision in the above captioned order dated June 29, 2011 is as follows :
"The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides directs the PIO to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant confirming the fact that there is no proforma of standard agreement for authorized dealers and also that the person whose name and address has been given (who is residing in Noida) is the person looking after the Amritsar office. The affidavit should reach the Commission/Appellant by 29.7.11 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 5.8.11. The Commission also directs the PIO to appear before the Commission for a rehearing on 29.7.11 @ 4.00 pm along with the written submission explaining as to why the information against points 2 and 3 attracts the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. A copy of the written submission may be shared with the Appellant."
2. The second hearing was accordingly held on 29 July, 2011. The Appellant was present for the hearing. The Respondents , however, were absent.
Decision
3. The Commission received a written submission from the Appellant dated 16.7.11 in which the Appellant contended that every Public Authority has an Institutional Price list for its product. In fact no organization can sell any product to Government Institutions without a pricelist. A pricelist is basic document to deal with Government departments,. He stated that only discounts and other terms & conditions are settled individually to the different Government institutions according to the situation.
He further added that all companies get these pricelists printed in quantity and freely distribute them to the public and customers to attract business. According to the Appellant it is also mandatory to make public the MRP pricelists especially for Medicines so that excess price charging should not be made on public. He argued that the Price lists, discount policies, agreements are information which must voluntarily be disclosed by the PA. Further the document of a Government Undertaking are never a secret.
3. There was no submission from the Respondents
4. The Commission after hearing the Appellant and after having noted that the Respondents have not bothered to appear for the hearing, has taken a decision in the absence of the Respondents and directs the PIO to provide complete information to the Applicant by 30th August 2011.
5. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc
1. Shri Parbodh Chander Bali H.No. 16, Shiv Nagar Batala Road Amrtisar - 143001.
Punjab.
2. The Public Information Officer HLL Lifecare Limited] Mahilamandiram Road Poojappura Thiruvananthapuram - 695012.
3. The Appellate Authorit HLL Lifecare Limited] Mahilamandiram Road Poojappura Thiruvananthapuram - 695012.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.
.
In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided