Central Information Commission
Jayaram Venkatesan vs Mmtc Limited on 11 March, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MMTCL/A/2021/603320
Jayaram Venkatesan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
MMTC Limited, RTI Cell,
Chennai House, 6 Esplanande,
Chennai - 600108, Tamilnadu. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/03/2022
Date of Decision : 10/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2020
CPIO replied on : 28/08/2020
First appeal filed on : 02/10/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 26/10/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 03.08.2020 seeking the following information:1
1) Provide the list of empanelled back up suppliers for fortified RBD palmolein oil to TamilNadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC) from January 2018 upto July 2020.
2) Provide the list of suppliers from whom fortified RBD palmolein oil was procured for supply to TNCSC and the quantity procured from each supplier for the following TNCSC tenders.
TNCSC/17-18/ET/23 TNCSC/18-19/ET/1 TNCSC/18-19/ET/3 TNCSC/18-19/ET/7 TNCSC/18-19/ET/10 TNCSC/18-19/ET/14 TNCSC/18-19/ET/19 TNCSC/18-19/ET/26 TNCSC/18-19/ET/30 TNCSC/18-19/ET/33 TNCSC/19-20/ET/1 TNCSC/19-20/ET/2 Any other TNCSC tender
3) Provide a copy of the notice inviting competitive price for back to back supply/ trade margin quotes from EOI empanelled parties for fortified RBD palmolein oil for the following TNCSC tenders.
TNCSC/17-18/ET/23 TNCSC/18-19/ET/30 TNCSC/18-19/ET/14 TNCSC/18-19/ET/19 TNCSC/19-20/ET/1 TNCSC/19-20/ET/2
4) Provide a list of suppliers who submitted trade margin quotes for the following TNCSC tender numbers.
TNCSC/17-18/ET/23 TNCSC/18-19/ET/1 TNCSC/18-19/ET/3 TNCSC/18-19/ET/7 TNCSC/18-19/ET/10 2 TNCSC/18-19/ET/14 TNCSC/18-19/ET/19 TNCSC/18-19/ET/26 TNCSC/18-19/ET/30 TNCSC/18-19/ET/33 TNCSC/19-20/ET/1 TNCSC/19-20/ET/2 Any other TNCSC tender
5) Provide the trade margin of MTC for the following tenders TNCSC/17-18/ET/23 TNCSC/18-19/ET/30 TNCSC/18-19/ET/14 TNCSC/18-19/ET/19 TNCSC/19-20/ET/1 TNCSC/19-20/ET/2 The CPIO furnished a factual reply to the appellant on 28.08.2020 against point No.5 of the RTI application and with regard to points No. 1 to 4 the information has been denied under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.10.2020. FAA's order dated 26.10.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO against point No. 3(i), (a), (b), (d) and
(e) of the RTI application. Further, FAA directed the CPIO against point No. 3(i) (c) of the RTI application, which is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"3(i) (c), the information sought is not related to commercial confidence falling under section 8(i) (d) and accordingly, the PIO is directed to furnish the reply to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of issue of this Order."
In compliance with FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 03.11.2020 furnished a reply to the appellant, which is as follows:-
"............we are annexed the scanned copies (one from each sought tender) of the notice inviting competitive price for back to back supply/trade margin quotes from E01 empanelled parties for Fortified Palmolein Oil for the following TNCSC Tenders viz. TNCSC/17-18/ET/23, TNCSC/18-19/ET/30, TNCSC/18-19/ET/14, TNCSC/18-19/ET/19, TNCSC/19-20/ET/1 and TNCSC/19-20/ET/2 as requested by you."3
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appealon the ground of denial of information by the CPIO against points no. 1 to 4 of RTI Application under the garb of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. He further harped on the fact that incomplete information has been furnished to him in response to point no. 5.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Sudhir Kapur, General Manager/CPIO, MMTC New Delhi along with Bhawna Kabra, DGM/PIO (Agro), MMTC New Delhi and P.Chelladurai, DGM &PIO MMTC -Chennai present through audio-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that a Similar appeal of the Appellant on the same subject matter has been heard and disposed off by this bench in case no. CIC/MMTCL/A/2020/674302 on 28.12.2021 with the following observation - "Decision:
....The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is completely inappropriate as the disclosure of the amount at which a pubic authority is sealing a tender or the mere disclosure of the name of the suppliers who have entered into a contractual agreement with the Govt. of India at the cost of the public exchequer cannot be said to be detrimental to the competitive position of these suppliers. As a matter of fact, information of such nature should ordinarily be placed in the public domain once the tender process is over in keeping with the tenets of probity and transparency to be maintained in the commercial transactions of the public authorities.
In this regard, a full bench decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000964 dated 03.09.2009 on the imperativeness of transparency in similar forms of contractual agreements of public authorities is of relative importance as it adds perspective to the right to information of the Appellant in the instant case; the relevant extract of the averred decision is stated hereunder: "18. Planning Commission ⎯ which has a separate Department / Section dedicated to Public Private Partnerships and is known to have prepared the Model PPP Agreements for the Government ⎯ has categorically stated that any plea of confidentiality of those documents (PPP Agreements) was insubstantial and deserved to be rejected. Comptroller & Auditor General of India also advised 4 the Commission that there was no room for confidentiality in matters such as PPP Agreements.
xxx
20....Such private parties frequently win the right to participate in the PPP Agreement in open competition, or are selected for their exclusive and extra-
ordinary competence in specified areas of activity. In either case, it is necessary that there is complete transparency about whether the selection of the Private Partner by the Government was made correctly and carefully and, that all aspects of the issue ⎯ environmental, social and human included ⎯ were seriously considered by the Government in making the choice. A matter of such critical importance to the country cannot be negotiated and settled behind the back of its people. The third-party cannot take recourse to the argument of its vital commercial and technical details being disclosed to its rivals for the simple reason that it is the consideration of these very details that won him the competitive bidding in the first place. It is important and crucial that the choice of the Private Partner by the Government is not cloaked in undue secrecy. xxx
25....These Agreements would involve commitment of the Government's financial and physical resources. If PPPs were not the mode of project execution, the entire operation would then be conducted by the Government and would have been subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, and all information thereof would be disclosable. It would be vain to argue that functions which were earlier transparent when performed by Government exclusively, should become opaque now that these are to be performed through PPP. This will amount to reversal of transparency and would be antithetical to public interest." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, the Commission finds no reason to withhold the information from the Appellant in the instant case. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide the available information as sought for in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission."
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the denial of information by the CPIO against points no. 1 to 4 of RTI Application under the garb of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that such information should be made public in order to ensure transparency.
Per contra, P.Chelladurai's, DGM &PIO MMTC Chennai submitted that keeping in mind the obiter dicta of the Commission in the averred previously heard Appeal of Appellant, the relevant information point wise has already been provided to the Appellant now vide letter dated 07.03.2022 through speed post.
5To a query from the Commission, the Appellant denied the receipt of averred letter of CPIO. In response to it, the CPIO- MMTC Chennai at the behest of the Commission agreed to share a copy of the same with the Appellant through email.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that rationale of aforesaid decision of the bench is squarely applicable to the instant case as well.
However, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO now vide letter dated 07.03.2022 as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief to be add on in the matter.
Now, considering the averments of PIO, MMTC- Chennai during hearing, he is hereby directed to resend a copy of his reply dated 07.03.2022 along with enclosures free of cost to the Appellant through email at his given email id. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO, MMTC- Chennai within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6