Mr. S. Mukherjee vs Dsiidc on 29 December, 2009

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                     Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002730/6123
                                                           Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002730

Appellant                                    :      Mr. S. Mukherjee
                                                    28-B, Masjid Moth,
                                                    Phase -I, DDA Flats,
                                                    New Delhi-110048

Respondent                                   :      Public Information Officer
                                                    CM (Liquor), DSIIDC
                                                    A-3/4, State Emporia Building,
                                                    IInd floor, Baba Kharak Singh
                                                    Marg, New Delhi-110001

RTI application filed on                     :      03/08/2009
PIO replied                                  :      04/09/2009
First Appeal filed on                        :      20/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order              :      09/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on                    :      26/10/2009

Information sought:
The Appellant had sought detailed information primarily in regard to two contexts: 1) in the year
2004-2005 a selection committee of senior officers of Delhi Govt. set up by DSIIDC for
selecting/approving a consultancy firm for the purpose of computerizing all the Liquor shops
under IMFL Division ; 2) detailed information about the then selected consultancy firm. The
following information was sought:

First 8 Queries of the RTI application basically seeks information about the selection committee
minutes of the meeting, a copy of the offer letter given to the selected consultancy firm & of the
documents that were submitted by the consultancy firm including the booklet providing the
names of technically qualified person(s); names of those involved in the firm before and after the
agreement; Name of the firm, wether private/partnership or limited firm; names of the
directors/partners of the firm & of those signing the agreement along with their designation; & a
copy of the signed agreement .

Query No.9 & 10 dealt with information on wether the firm adhered to the provisions of the
agreement in respect to two things:
▪ providing one P.C. set along with a printer& stationary to each shop of IMFL. Further if there
were any shops complaining of insufficiency f0r the same. ;
▪ transferring all sales data from each shop on day to day basis to the Head quarter of the IMFL
Division. In case of violation of agreement in this regard what action was proposed by the
division. Further, if computing weekly orders by the E.D.P for IMFL shops were based on inputs
provided by the the firm, if not, then on what basis were the weekly orders calculated.
 Query No. 11 sought information in regard to the payment terms with consultancy firm that if it
was against submission of bill/s or if any other system for payment was followed as per the
agreement provisions.

Query No.12 If there was/is any liability of the firm towards DSIIDC, as per agreement.

Query No.13 Were any changes recommended for the constitution of the firm post agreement, if
yes, provide correspondences in this context. Secondly, if any legal consultation was sought in
this regard, if yes, what was the outcome?
Further, why were the contractual workers engaged by the IMFL Division who were appointed
on contract basis through M/s Sahyog IT for transferring datas of each IMFL division to HQ for
computing of weekly orders .If cost of these computer operators observed by the consultancy
firm. Further, if as per agreement was it the liability of the firm to provide the weekly sales data
to IMFL HQ.

Query No.14 In accordance with query no.9 were any violation of agreement made not off, if so,
to provide the nature of violation as recorded on file and correspondences made thereof.

Query No.15 dealt with information about the review meeting that was held in regard to the
violations caused by the firm, in addition to the earnings made in terms of the names of officers
present in the meeting; feedback on the violations committed, details of the account of earning(s)
made by the consultancy firm by way of advertisement in the IMFL Vends given by the Area
Manager/Division Manager during the meeting & a copy of the minutes of the meeting.

Query No.16 & 17 Any subsequent action that was taken to put the agreement on hold for
indefinite period or if any restrictions were put in place for the firm. If neither of such action
was taken, on what grounds the firm was allowed to continue its activity.

Query No.18 & 19 To provide observation of the Division recorded by the then OSD/Consultant
for terminating the agreement of the consultancy firm for violation of the agreement and the
recommendation of the legal counsel thereof. What decision was eventually taken by the
competent authority for terminating the agreement.

Query No.20 If the agreement is still in force, how is the firm compensated for the expenditure
incurred by them.

PIO's Reply:
Copy of the M.O.U with consultancy firm M/s Utopia confirming their selection was made
available. However, the remaining information was denied under Section 8 (1) (d) [wrongly
mentioned in the PIO's reply dated 04/09/2009 as Section 8 (d)] of the RTI Act.

Grounds for First Appeal:
Information was provided only in regard to Query No.8 and denial of rest of the information
under Section 8 (1) (d) appears unreasonable to the Appellant. In addition to this, the delay in
responding as against the mandated time is cited as another potential ground.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
It was observed that certain information which was not strictly of third party nature could be
provided. Further, as per Appellant's desire, an inspection of documents and to take photocopies
thereof was allowed within 15 days from the order.
 Grounds for Second Appeal:
Primarily, denial of information by the PIO. Secondly, Appellant has grievances against the PIO
for allegedly using abusive language during the hearing held before the First Appellate
Authority, of which the FAA was also ascertained vide Appellant's detailed letter of allegations
to the FAA dated 12/10/2009.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Absent;

The appellant vide letter dated 15/12/2009 informed the Commission that he had received
the information satisfactorily and wishes to withdraw the appeal.

Decision:

The Appeal is withdrawn.

Appellant has received complete satisfactory information.

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 Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj