Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri. V.V. Sudhakar Roy vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. on 27 February, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri. V.V. Sudhakar Roy vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. on 27 February, 2009
                Central Information Commission
                            2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                        Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
                                Website: www.cic.gov.in

                                                           Decision No.3733/IC(A)/2009

                                                            F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/00056

                                                       Dated, the 27th February, 2009

Name of the Appellant:                  Shri. V.V. Sudhakar Roy


Name of the Public Authority:           Steel Authority of India Ltd.

         i
Facts

:

1. Both the parties were heard on 27/2/2009.

2. The appellant has sought for the following information:

a) “Copy of the Bid along with the Annexures submitted by M/s Esskay
Shipping Pvt. Ltd, having registered office at Esskay House, 25-40-40
Gangulavari Street Vishakapatnam – 530 001, in response to the Tender
Notice No.03/01/01/34 dated 23.9.2005.

b) Copy of the MoU signed by M/s Esskay Shipping Pvt. Ltd., M/s Eversun
Sparkle Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s Emirates Trading Agency LLC
and M/s Vizag Seaport Pvt. Ltd. and submitted by M/s Esskay shipping
Pvt. Ltd. along with the Bid or afterwards against the Tender
No.03/01/01/34 dated 23.9.2005.

c) Copy of the Bid along with the Annexures submitted by M/s Prathyusha
Associates, having registered office at Prathyusha House, 25-40-23
Gangulavari Street Vishakapatnam – 5 530001, vis-à-vis the Tender
No.03/01/01/34, dated 23.9.2005.

i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi

1

d) Copy of the MOU signed by M/s Prathyusha Associates, m/s Eversun
Sparkle Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s emirates Trading Agency LLC
and M/s Vizag Seaport Pvt. Ltd. and; submitted by M/s Prathyusha
Associat4s, along with the Bid or afterwards, against the Tender
No.03/01/01./34 dated 23.9.2005.”

3. The CPIO has refused to furnish the information partly on the ground of
commercial confidence u/s 8(1)(d) of the Act, and partly on the ground of third
party information u/s 8(1)(e) of the Act.

4. In the course of hearing, it emerged that the information asked for pertain
to the MoU signed between two private parties including the appellant, which are
also in possession of the respondent. The CPIO said that the appellant has
asked for documents which he has submitted to us. The appellant admitted that
he was in possession of the documents, but he wanted to verify certain facts
contained in the MoU available with the respondent.

5. It also emerged that the appellant has asked for copy of another MoU
entered by two different parties, which is currently in operation. The CPIO stated
that the MoU in question is a commercial document, the disclosure of which
would jeopardize the on-going activities of the respondent and, therefore,
disclosure of information is not in public interest. Hence, denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the
Act.

Decision:

6. An information seeker is free to seek access to relevant documents only
after the conclusion of operationalisation of the commercial and business
agreement between the parties. In the instant case, the MoU in question is
effective for another one year or so.

7. There is, therefore, no justification for disclosure of relevant details, mainly
because the appellant has not been able to pinpoint as to what has gone wrong
in the operation of the agreement. The appellant has not specifically mentioned
about corrupt practices, if any. The appellant being in the business of providing
logistical support to the companies associated with the business of the
respondent, the disclosure of information at this stage may jeopardize the
business activities. The denial of information u/s 8(1) (d) of the Act is therefore
justified.

8. As regards, the documents submitted by the appellant to the respondent,
there is no justification for asking them from the respondent, as the appellant has
admitted that he already had them.

2

9 With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii

Authenticated true copy:

(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar

Name & address of Parties:

1. Shri. V.V. Sudhakar Roy, Director, Eversun Sparkle Maritime Services
Pvt. Ltd., W.A. Building, S4 Gallery, Near GFCL, Visakhapatnam Port
Area, Visakhapatnam – 530 035.

2. Shri. B. Bhakat, AGM © & CPIO, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Central
Marketing Organisation, Public Relations Department, Ispat Bhawan, 40,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700 071.

3. Shri Ajit Sinha, GM (P&A) & Appellate Authority, SAIL/CMO, Ispat
Bhawan, 40 J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700 071.

ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle

3