Central Information Commission
Mathew Thomas vs Niti Aayog on 22 November, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001593
Shri Mathew Thomas ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Unique Identification Authority of India
Relevant dates emerging from the Appellant:
Date of Commission's Order : 21.10.2013
Order in compliance of High Court Order dated 06.09.2023 : 16.11.2023
ORDER
1. The above Second Appeal arose out of the Appellant's RTI application seeking copies of all contracts awarded to UIDAI with two foreign companies, namely, L 1 Identity Solutions and M/s Accenture for Biometrics Technology and other purposes. The Second Appeal was decided by the Commission vide order dated 21.10.2013 with a direction to the respondent to provide a copy of two contracts to the Appellant within two weeks from the receipt of the order.
2. The Appellant approached the Commission stating that though copies of contracts had been handed over to Shri Gopal Krishna, the representative of the Appellant on 10.09.2013, but alleging that certain annexures were found missing.
3. The Assistant Director General & CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India responded vide letter dated 27.08.2014 submitting that: on the date of hearing i.e. 10.09.2013, the Appellant was provided a copy of the two contracts vide letter of even number dated 10.09.2013, annexing a copy of the relevant letter dated 10.09.2013. The letter clearly indicated that copies of two contracts Page 1 of 6 of M/s Identity Solutions for Biometrics Technology and M/s Accenture for Biometrics Technology had been given to the Appellant with the covering letter dated 10.09.2013.
In the same letter dated 27.08.2014, the Assistant Director General & CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India mentioned a letter dated 20.12.2013 which had been sent to the Appellant in response to his email dated 11.09.2013 about missing pages in the two contracts. Contents of the letter dated 20.12.2013 sent by the Respondent are as under:
"..Please refer to e-mail dated 11.09.2013 of your representative Shri Gopal Krishna for the missing pages from contract agreement of UIDAI with reference to the hearing in CIC on 10.09.2013. There are no missing pages of the two contracts given to your representative as CIC order dated 21.10.2013(M/s Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd-no. of pages 248 and M/s Identity Solutions for Biometrics Technology No. of pages
246). Some the pages in above contracts have only references of Annexures. The annexures J&K wrt M/s Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.
mentioned Technical Bid and commercial Bid. The annexures I,J&K wrt M/s L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Private Limited mentioned-non disclosure Agreement, Technical Bid and Commercial Bids.
As per Confidentiality Disclosure statement, the document contains confidential information of above firms and they had requested not to disclose the information outside UIDAI or be used for purposes other than the evaluation of their business capabilities. Moreover, this being third party information, the firms were requested for their comments wherein they had denied for sharing of their documents with any applicant..."
4. The Commission took cognizance of the above mentioned contentions of both parties and passed the order dated 03.09.2014 observing as follows:
"...This matter pertains to an appeal dated 24.05.2013 filed by the Appellant, in regard to his RTI application dated 10.4.2012, which was received by the Commission on 29.5.2013. It came up before us today. The Appellant submitted that his appeal concerning the same RTI application was heard earlier by the Commission. He further submitted that the Commission passed an interim order No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003157 dated 26.7.2013 and final order No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003157 dated 21.10.2013. The Appellant also submitted that the order of the Commission was complied with partially by the Respondents, because he was given only copies of contracts, but Page 2 of 6 not the technical and commercial bids, forming annexures to the contracts. The Respondents submitted that these annexures were denied because the concerned third parties did not want this information to be disclosed.
.........
3. Having considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties, the Registry is directed to examine the matter concerning compliance with the order dated 21.10.2013 within two weeks of the issuance of this order.
5. Accordingly, the Dy. Registrar of the concerned Registry with the approval of the Information Commissioner, examined the matter and closed it with the following observation:
"2. The matter was accordingly examined and placed before the Commission. I am directed to convey that you should, within 2 weeks of receipt of this order, provide to the Appellant the limited information i.e. financial quotation/price quoted by the third party firms in the subject tender as disclosure of it would not inflict any harm to the competitive position of third party firms at this stage when the contract has already expired. As regards the remaining information concerning Technical Bid and Commercial Bid, it was observed that your decision (conveyed to the Appellant, Shri Mathew Thomas by letter No. F-120131096120121RT1- UIDAI dated 20.12.2013) to deny this information to the Appellant after following the third party information procedure laid down in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act was in conformity with the High Court of Delhi in BSNL v. Chander Sekhar; LPA No. 900/2010; date of decision 23.03.2012; Commission's Full Bench decision dated 20.05.2013 in Kuljit Singh and Anr. v. PFCL; and Commission's decision dated 01.09.2014 in Ajay Chadha v. Charak Palika Hospital, NDMC; date of decision 01.9.2014; Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2O13/001664-YA and CIC/DS/A/2013/001684- YA. Moreover, the Appellant has not established any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information in question. Therefore, there shall be no disclosure with regard to the information concerning the Technical Bid and Commercial Bid as it falls under the exemption category of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act..."
The Appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the orders dated 03.9.2014 and 14.10.2014. The Hon'ble Court passed an order dated 06.09.2023 in W.P (C) No. 9143/2014, and remanded it to the CIC to consider whether the decision dated 21.10.2013 had been properly complied with or not.
Page 3 of 6Decision:
6. The Commission has re-examined the matter and it has been found that information permissible under the RTI Act had been provided by the Respondent, as admitted by the Appellant, and duly noted in the Commission's order dated 03.09.2014. The reason behind denial of information pertaining to Technical Bid and Commercial Bid has been explained by the Respondent in their letter dated 27.08.2014, which the Commission has noted in the order dated 14.10.2014, while closing the case. The Commission had also been apprised of the fact that considering the confidentiality of the information sought, procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act was duly followed and the both the third parties denied disclosure of the information pertaining to Technical Bid and Commercial Bid.
To understand the sensitivity of the information sought by the Appellant, it will be worthwhile to place reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court passed in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Shri Chander Sekhar on 23 March, 2012 discussing this issue:
"11. ....the secret bids are not confined to the price only, which may cease to be of any value or lose confidentiality once the bids are opened. The bids/tenders today require the bidders to submit in the bids a host of information which may help and be required by the tender calling institution to evaluate the suitability and reliability of the contracting party. The bidders are often required to, in their bids disclose information about themselves, their processes, turnover and other factors which may help the tender calling institution to evaluate the capability of the bidder to perform the contracted work. The secret bids/tenders are often divided into technical and financial parts. 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. 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 Page 4 of 6 in future bids. We may at 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 carve 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 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 well- informed 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..."
Emphasis supplied In fact in almost identical conditions, this Commission had vide decision dated 01.09.2014 in second appeals filed by Ajay Chaddha v. Charak Palika Hospital, NDMC [Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2O13/001664-YA and CIC/DS/A/2013/001684- YA] held as under:
"..In the instant case, the appellant has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought regarding the technical bid of the tender is in larger public interest. It being so, the information is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
7. In the instant case, information relating to the contracts as permissible under the RTI Act has been admittedly provided by the Respondent. The Page 5 of 6 Appellant has not established any case of larger public interest being served by disclosure of the Technical Bid and Commercial Bid. Thus, decision dated 21.10.2013 appears to have been duly complied with by the Respondent. The matter is accordingly treated as closed.
8. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
Heeralal Samariya (ह रालाल साम रया) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535
1. Assistant Director General &CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India
2. Shri Mathew Thomas Page 6 of 6