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

In Dinesh Kumar Saboo v Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited (Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/002320, decided on June 5, 2013), the Central Information Commission held that commercial records of a private contractor cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act 2005 when sought by a commercial rival to settle personal business grievances without demonstrating an overriding public interest.

Case Background and Factual Matrix

The appellant, Dinesh Kumar Saboo, filed an application dated June 27, 2011, under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 before the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited (CRWC). The information requested pertained to third-party manpower contractor records at Bhopal, specifically:

• Details and deposit receipts of money deposited into the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) accounts of laborers engaged by the contractor for manpower supply to CRWC, along with laborer names.
• A copy of the statutory labour license issued to the manpower contractor.
• Copies of the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) cards and identity cards issued to individual contract laborers.

The Public Information Officer denied disclosure on August 2, 2011, invoking statutory exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence and trade secrets) and Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary relationship) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the denial on August 10, 2011, prompting the appellant to file a second appeal before the Central Information Commission on September 5, 2011.

Procedural History and Interlocutory Orders of the Commission

The Central Information Commission initially considered the matter on January 5, 2012. Noting that the compliance of labour laws directly affects contract workers, the Commission directed the First Appellate Authority to examine the contractor records and issue a detailed speaking order within four weeks, while ordering the release of the labour license by January 31, 2012.

On March 16, 2012, the Appellate Authority passed a fresh order maintaining the denial of EPF and ESI records based on explicit objections submitted by the third party under Section 8(1)(d). Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellant approached the Commission once more. On April 23, 2013, the Commission observed that the FAA order lacked detailed reasoning on how Section 8(1)(d) applied, and directed the third-party contractor, Vikas Road Carrier, to appear personally with relevant records on May 21, 2013, to substantiate its claim of commercial confidence under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act.

Submissions of the Third Party and Discovery of Commercial Rivalry

During the hearing held on May 21, 2013, Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain, partner of Vikas Road Carrier, presented complete written submissions revealing the underlying history between the parties:

1. Tender History: Both the third party (Vikas Road Carrier) and the appellant's firm (Process Engineers) had competed as business rivals in a tender invited by the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) for handling railway rakes at Bhopal. Vikas Road Carrier emerged as the lowest bidder and was awarded the formal contract on August 11, 2006.
2. Parallel Contract and Civil Litigation: CRWC subsequently attempted to issue a parallel contract to the appellant's firm, which prompted Vikas Road Carrier to file a civil suit before the 1st Additional District Judge at Bhopal against both CWC and the appellant.
3. Arbitration Referral: By an order dated November 12, 2007, the civil court referred the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the contract arbitration clause. The appellant was not assigned handling work during the arbitration proceedings, and the contract period expired on August 7, 2008.
4. Malafide Use of RTI: Having failed to secure business or contract renewals, the appellant adopted a vindictive stance against Vikas Road Carrier. There was no internal labor unrest, worker complaint, or labor dispute within Vikas Road Carrier. The third party demonstrated that the appellant was seeking proprietary staffing and wage information purely to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

Similar to civil claims governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 litigation procedures and statutory filing deadlines under the Limitation Act 1963 statutory periods, proceedings under statutory transparency laws require clean hands and legitimate legal standing.

Legal Analysis of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005

Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act 2005 exempts from disclosure information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure. The Central Information Commission applied a three-fold inquiry to evaluate the exemption:

• Existence of Commercial Harm: The Commission found that disclosing detailed labor deployment schedules, salary deposit receipts, and internal workforce documentation to an active commercial competitor operating in the exact same geographic and industrial market would prejudice the third party's bidding strategy and commercial standing.
• Absence of Public Interest: The appellant failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that workers had been denied EPF or ESI benefits or that any public welfare purpose would be served by providing third-party employee lists to a private competitor.
• Abuse of Process: The appellant failed to appear at the final hearing on May 21, 2013, despite explicit directions, confirming that the application was motivated by private commercial animosity rather than public transparency.

Summary of Principles Established in the Ruling

Final Decision of the Commission

The Central Information Commission concluded that no larger public interest would be served by the dissemination of the information sought by the appellant. The Commission recorded that the appellant was seeking to use the RTI Act for personal gains against a business competitor. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that information that can be misused in inappropriate hands must be protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act.

Full Text of the Central Information Commission Order

Central Information Commission
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/002320
Date of Decision: 5 June 2013

In the matter of: Dinesh Kumar Saboo v Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited (CRWC)

The Order of the Commission 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 under Sections 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. A copy of said reply of the PIO was also enclosed with the AA order. Aggrieved with the PIO 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 labour 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 under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Being yet again denied the information, the Appellant again approached the Commission. By 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 under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It does not give any reason as to how information in question would attract exemption under Section 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 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 then take a decision on the matter.

5. The Third Party concerned also is hereby granted an opportunity of being heard under Section 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 under Section 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 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 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 against the Vikas Road Carrier.

The Appellant could not manage to obtain appointment of service provider even subsequently, which increased the adverse 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 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 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 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 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.

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 inappropriate hands.

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

Appeal dismissed.