Central Information Commission
Shri K.S. Periyaswamy vs Shri R. Ramesh, Pr. Scientific Officer ... on 13 September, 2006
ORDER
A.N. Tiwari, I.C.
1. This appeal has been filed by Shri K.S. Periyaswamy against the order dated 13.6.2006 of the Appellate Authority, Shri Asad Ahmed, Addl. DGQA, Ministry of Defence and the order dated 26.4.2006 of the APIO, Shri R. Ramesh, Pr. Scientific Officer, DGQA, Ministry of Defence.
2. The PIO and the Appellate Authority rejected the request for information sought by the appellant, which was as follows:
Please arrange to provide me Certified Copies of [1] Inspection Note /Certificate, [2] Supply Order [3] Inspected Equipment Despatch particulars of Goods Carrying Note/Railway Receipt, pertains to the Defence Equipments manufactured by M/s Bharat Earth Movers Limited, at their unit at Bangalore, Mysore, Kolar Gold Fields for the period: 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2006 And Detail List of Defence Equipments for which Inspection Note /Certificate issued by your office, during the period: [1] 01-04-2003 to 31-03-2004, [2] 01-04-2004 to 31-03-2005, [3] 01-04-2005 to 31-03-2006, the equipments are still with BEML without executing the dispatches to the consignee(s) as on 01-04-2006
3. The Appellate Authority has invoked exemption under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, to deny the information sought by the appellant Section 8(1)(a) exempts, inter-alia, disclosure of information which prejudicially affect security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, whereas Section 8(1)(d) exempts, inter-alia, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the 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.
4. The parties were called for a hearing today (i.e. 13.9.2006). The appellant was called and was absent The public authority was represented by Shri Asad Ahmed, Addl DGQA & Appellate Authority, Shri R. Ramesh, Pr. Scientific Officer & APIO and Shri B.R.S. Reddy, General Manager (IR), Bharat Earth Movers Limited The appellant has sent a written rejoinder to the points made by the Appellate Authority and the APIO He has stated, The information, which I sought in my application, is within the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. The BEML vide his letter dated 10-4-2006 [Appendix-C], mention about my suspension and enquiry, which is malfidiely with conspiracy initiated by BEML Tainted Officials under the provisions of BEML Employees Standing Orders within the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. This act does not curtail/prevent my right in seeking the information under the RTI Act, 2005 Moreover, the information that I sought does fall under the Second Schedule/Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. The vehicles supplied by BEML is a Truck procured by the BEML from a Middlemen Company M/s Tatra Sipox (UK) Ltd., United Kingdom, for which No Governmental Approval Granted to BEML and these Vehicles are not classified as sensitive in nature by any competent authority.
5. During the hearing, the Appellate Authority and the APIO produced the file containing some of the documents requested by the appellant It was pointed out that this information have had a direct bearing on the requirement of the Defence Forces and it was liable to be misused if disclosed. The vehicles which are supplied appear to be commercial in nature but given the fact that they are to be used as mounts for weapons and equipment, any details about such vehicles assume a more sensitive character Inspection notes, supply orders, equipment dispatch particulars, etcall can be extrapolated for obtaining security related information about the countrys Defence Forces and defence preparedness.
6. It was also argued that the information sought by the appellant from M/s Bharat Earth Movers Limited is essentially a commercial information, disclosure of which, will hurt the companys commercial interest.
7. On studying the material brought before me by the Appellate Authority, I am convinced that the information requested by the appellant is security related and its disclosure is clearly barred under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 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 Potentiality of such disclosure to affect the firms competitive position and commercial interest is considerable I am also of the opinion that there is no public interest involved in the disclosure of the above mentioned information.
8. In overall consideration of these facts, I agree with the contention of the Appellate Authority.
9. The appeal is rejected.