Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/09/00050/AD
Dated January 30, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Anil Agrawal
Name of the Public Authority : BSNL, Ambala
Background
1. The Appellant filed an RTI request dt.22.8.08 with the CPIO, BSNL, Ambala
seeking information about the reason, duly supported by the copies of the
notings of various officers, for reducing the tendered quantity from 2769 km to
2077 km with regard to T.E.No.MM/HR/NIT/2007-08/4 dt.19.7.07 opened on
17.8.07. The PIO replied on 22.9.08 providing some information. Not satisfied
with the reply, The Appellant filed an appeal dt.3.10.08 with the Appellate
Authority. The Appellate Authority replied on 24.10.08 stating that reduction
of tendered quantity of PVC Twin was as per provisions under Clause 25(a) of
the bid document and that procurement of any item of its quantity is
commercial information and therefore denied under provisions of Section 8 (1)
(d) of the RTI Act. The Appellant still not satisfied, filed a second appeal
dt.17.11.08 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on January 30, 2009.
3. Mr. V.K. Gupta, GM (NC)/CPIO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that the custodian of information has informed that
the quantity of PVC Twin was reduced under the clause No.25 (a) of Section V
of bid documents, according to which the purchaser will have the right to
increase/decrease the tendered quantity upto 25% without any change in the
unit price or other terms and conditions at the time of award of contract. He
also added that the procurement of any item or its quantity etc. is commercial
information and disclosure of the same is exempted under Section 8(1) (d) of
the RTI Act. He pointed out that an Arbitrator in this case has also been
appointed and an award from the Arbitrator is awaited. Hence disclosure at
this stage is also exempted under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.
6. The Commission holds that since Arbitral proceedings are in the nature of any
ordinary Court proceedings which demand utmost transparency, the plea
adopted by the Respondent for non disclosure of documents is unsustainable.
Even otherwise, arbitral proceedings are not in the nature of investigation so as
to debar accessibility of documents relied upon since Arbitration as an Alternate
Dispute Redressal Mechanism does not debar the disclosure of any public
document in the similar way like any other Court proceedings. Hence the
information sought by the Appellant, is clearly out of the ambit of Section 8 (1)
(h) of the RTI Act 2005 and this averment of the respondent is clearly
unsustainable. Also since as per the Appellant’s submission during the hearing,
that the tender has already been finalized and that the appellant was the only
bidder, the Respondent’s contention that information is of commercial
confidence is denied under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act does not have any
merit and is invalid. Therefore in the light of the foregoing arguments, the
CPIO is directed to furnish the information as sought by the appellant, within
15 days from the receipt of this order.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr. Anil Agrawal
B-34, Lajpat Nagar
Part-I
1st Floor
New Delhi 110 024
2. The PIO &
The General Manager (A)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o Chief General Manager
Haryana Telecom Circle
Ambala 133 001
3. The Appellate Authority &
The Chief General Manager Telecom
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
O/o Chief General Manager
Haryana Telecom Circle
Ambala 133 001
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC