Dinesh Kumar Saboo v Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited (CRWC)

Central Information Commission

 5 June 2013

CIC/AD/A/2011/002320

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. The Applicant in this case sought 3 pieces of information viz.,

“1. money deposited in the EPF Accounts of labourers by the contractor, who was engaged by the CRWC for supply of manpower; names of the labourers; money deposit receipts;

2. copy of labour license of contractor; and

3. copy of ESI card and identity card issued to labourers by RTI application dated 27.06.2011.”

A First Appeal dated 28.07.2011 was filed due to non receipt of the PIO reply.

The AA responded to this appeal on 10.08.2011 mentioning therein about the PIO reply dated 02.08.2011 by which the PIO had declined the disclosure of information to the Applicant citing exemption u/ss. 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. A copy of said reply of the PIO was also enclosed with the AA’s order. Aggrieved with the PIO’s reply, the Appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on 05.09.2011. During the hearing held on 05.01.2012, the Commission directed as follows:

“Considering the importance of the matter which deals with the compliance of the l abour law by the Contractor which in turn affects the workers engaged by the public authority through contractor, it is directed that the Appellate Authority shall call for all the records relating to the present enquiry from the contractor and then decide on whether the information sought by the Applicant can be made available to him or not under the provisions of the RTI Act, within the framework of the terms and conditions laid down in the contract. The Appellate Authority may pass a speaking order in this connection within 4 weeks of receipt of this order. 4. The information (i.e. copy of labour license -item no. 2) based on which the contract was awarded to the contractor, however, to be furnished to the Appellant by the PIO by 31.1.12″

2. This was followed by an order passed by the Appellate Authority (Shri R.K. Sadhwani) on 16.03.2012 declining the disclosure of requisite information to the Appellant in view of the objection of the third party, who sought exemption from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Being yet again denied the information, the Appellant again approached the Commission. By the captioned order dated 23.04.2013 the Commission decided as follows:

“…………Upon hearing the parties and after perusing the records, especially the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority, it is noted that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in the instant matter cannot be construed as ‘speaking order’. This order simply approves of the contention of the third party that information sought by the Appellant is exempt u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. It does not give any reason as to how information in question would attract exemption u/S 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act.

4. Considering the above, it is now hereby directed that the Respondents shall summon all the records dealing with the Appellant’s RTI application from the third party (contractor) and produce them before the Commission on May 21st 2013 at 11:00 a.m. for its perusal. The Commission would the take a decision would then take a decision on the matter.

5. The Third Party concerned also is hereby granted an opportunity of being heard u/s 19(4) of the RTI Act. The Third Party is directed to appear before the Commission on said date and file a written submission in support of its claim that information sought by the Appellant attracts exemption sought by the Appellant attracts exemption u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. A copy of this written submission may also be sent to the Appellant (in advance) for counter, if any.

6. The PIO is directed to serve this order to the Third Party concerned for compliance….”

3. Subsequently another hearing was held on 21.05.2013 which was attended by the representative of the Third party. The Third party viz. Vikas Road Carrier, represented by one of its partners Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain, placed on record written submissions stating that the Third party and the Appellant are competitors in the business of Railway Rakes in Bhopal, both of them having submitted bids for a tender invited by the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) for the appointment of Service Provider.

The Third party has narrated that his bid was selected being the lowest quote and an agreement was executed on 11.08.2006 between CWC and Vikas Road Carrier (the Third Party) represented through Dinesh Kumar Jain, being one of the partners. Work order was accordingly issued to the Third party for the period 08.08.2006 to 07.08.2008 for handling of Railway Rakes.

However, the CWC issued a parallel contract to the Appellant’s organisation viz. Process Engineers alongside the agreement executed with Vikas Road Carriers. This parallel contract adversely affected the Third Party and accordingly a Civil Suit was filed by the Third party at the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal against CWC and the Appellant. The said litigation came to an end by an order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bhopal referring the matter to arbitration in view of the Arbitration clause in the contract. While the Appellant was not assigned any business by CWC during the period of the Arbitration proceedings, the Arbitration itself lasted beyond the duration of the contract i.e. 07.08.2008 and consequently the decision of the Arbitrator was not required. Due to the denial of business, the Appellant turned prejudicial/offensive against the Vikas Road Carrier.

The Appellant could not manage to obtain appointment of service provider even subsequently, which increased the revengeful attitude of the Appellant against the Third party. It is the contention of the Third party that the Appellant having been denied business despite the illegal parallel contract had become vindictive and with malafide intent sought to harass the Third party. The Respondent Third party pointed out that information pertaining to the Third party’s business particularly the confidential information regarding the ESI, EPF and Labour license were sought whereas there was no labour unrest or grievance within the Respondent’s organisation at the point to be addressed. The Respondent thus apprehended that since there was no justifiable cause for the Appellant to obtain the said information, in view of the background of the relations between the Appellant and the Third party, dissemination of the said information could harm the commercial position of the Respondent.

4. Having heard the detailed submissions and perused the records of the case, the Commission finds that in view of the additional facts of the case, which were brought to the notice of the Commission earlier by the Appellant’s representative, it becomes evident that no larger public interest shall be served by the dissemination of the information as sought by the Appellant, especially in the light of the fact that the two are competitors and the Appellant is simply trying to use the RTI Act for personal gains.

Be that as it may, since there appears to be no case made out for larger public interest being the reason behind the RTI application, and since the Appellant failed to appear before the Commission for the hearing even after being directed to do so, the Commission is not in favour of disclosure of the information which can be misused if it reaches the inappropriate hands.

5. The appeal of the Appellant is thus dismissed on the above terms.

Appeal dismissed