CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001386/4523
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001386
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Bali Charan
B-12 A, Gali No.-2,
East Nathu Colony, Shahdara,
Delhi-110093.
Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Kumar
PIO (Health)
New Delhi Municipal Council
(Health Department), 10 Floor, Room No.1010,
Palika Kendra, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 07/10/2008
PIO replied : 19/11/2008
First appeal filed on : 16/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 29/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 27/05/2009
S.No Information sought PIO's reply
1. Give the details of points from Public Health Department of NDMC is having
MOU signed between the NGO an agreement with the Ramky regarding
(Chintan), Ramki (A private sector collection & transportation of garbage. The
company) and NDMC for copy of the Ramkay agreement between the
management and disposal of two parties cannot be given without the
garbage in the city. consent of the party. The Public Health
Department has not made any MOU with the
metro and Chintan-an NGO.
Give the progress report of any By the Public Health Department there is no
agreement which is under process communication with any NGO regarding
between NGOs and other agreement related to Solid Waste
companies for disposal of garbage. Management.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
“A meeting was held with you in present of PIO (Health) where all the information were
provided to you. During the meeting you have requested that the other members of your
organization also wants to meet the Head of Health Department. For this you are informed to
write a request letter to the concerned & get his meeting time.”
Grounds for Second Appeal
Incomplete information received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 14/07/2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr.Bali Charan
Respondent: Dr. R.S.Agarwal on behalf of PIO Mr. Ramesh Kumar
The respondent states that he had sought the consent of third party M/s Ramky Energy and
Environment Ltd. Under Section 11 who had refused consent by the letter 11 November 2008
stating, “As this a PPP project involving both the parties (Ramky Energy and Environment Ltd.
as well as NDMC) therefore we would like to request NDMC not to share the concession
documents with third parties in the best interest of the project. We have out apprehensions “that
concession agreement might be used for creating hurdles and smooth functioning of the said
project”.” The third party or PIO had not given any reasons claiming exemption under Section
8(1) of the RTI Act. Denial of information under RTI Act can only be under Section 8(1) and the
reasons for denial alongwith an explanation of how the exemption applies must be given.
However, the Commission is adjourning the hearing to give an opportunity to the third party to
present its objection and grievance for non-disclosure under RTI Act. The third party M/s Ramky
Energy and Environment Ltd, PIO and the Appellant are directed to present on 21 August 2009
at 11.30am to give their submission in the matter. The matter is adjourned to 21 August 2009
at 11.30AM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 21/08/2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr.Bali Charan
Respondent: Dr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Abhay Ranjan third party.
The Third Party Mr. Abhay Ranjan states, “the information is likely to be misused by the
applicant as this is happening since day one after sharing the information there are chances that
the Applicant and the member associated with them will create more hurdles in implementation
and execution of PPP Project which relates to public health and safety.” The Third Party
Mr. Abhay Ranjan has also given his written submission in which he has argued that the
information is exempt under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. However, no argument has been
advanced to show how Section 8(1) (d) applies. No argument has been given to show how
“Commercial confidence, Trade Secretes or Intellectual property” is involved in the instant case.
Public Private Partnerships are actually partnerships entered into by different Government
organizations on behalf of Citizens and Citizens certainly have a right to access these. In this
case no exemption appears to apply but even if some exemption of section 8(1) were to be shown
to apply, in most case there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of public private
agreements. This is required essentially to ensure transparency in the governance.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information will be provided by the PIO to the Appellant before 31 August 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6)
of RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
21 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)