Appellant: The agents authorised by SCI have been charging high amounts from their clients, therefore he sought the copy of principle agreement that is signed between SCI and its agents - CIC: principal agency agreement cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(d)
13 May, 2015Information sought:
The appellant sought information on 11 points regarding agents authorised by Shipping Corporation of India along with policy on Ocean Freight, details of credit policy, agency agreements, etc.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 26.07.2013 seeking the above information. The PIO gave a point-wise reply to the appellant. The FAA in his order directed PIO to furnish SCI’s guidelines to agents, other than agency agreement, if any, to the appellant. The PIO, in compliance of FAA’s order, sent another letter to the appellant dt. 25.10.2013 stating:–
“As directed by the FAA in the said order, we would like to inform you that SCI gives guidelines to the SCI agents in the Container Manual which is distributed to the agents during World wise agents meet held in Mumbai. Furthermore, there is regular exchange of e-mails between SCI Line Managers and the agents.”
The appellant stated that an agent appointed by the SCI will be governed under the Indian Contract Act, and as such, for the acts done by agents, Principal, in this case, SCI, shall be liable. He stated that the agents appointed by SCI are indulging in anti-competition activities. The respondent denied any such thing and stated that the agents appointed work as per the agency contract. The appellant stated that agents authorised by SCI have been charging high amounts from their clients and therefore he sought the copy of principle agreement that is signed between SCI and its agents, without which information on some points cannot be obtained. He stated that FAA’s order have not been complied with. The respondent stated that information as per record was provided to the appellant and he further stated that the First Appellate Authority had only advised him and not directed him as stated by the appellant.
The respondent stated that principal agency agreement cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 the disclosure of such information; as it consists of the market rates charged along with other business development considerations. On query by the Commission, whether information, regarding guidelines under which the agents are working, sought on suspicion of a person who feels that the agent is charging more than what is prescribed can be denied; the respondent stated that rates charged by agents differ location-wise and the rates change from time-to-time. He further stated that contacts of the public authority with its agents cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 the disclosure of such information; as the same includes information relating to commercial confidence of a third party, i.e. the agents. The appellant contended that the agents cannot be treated as ‘third party’ under Indian Contract Act (ICA), 1872 as they are one, and that the agreement between the public authority and its agents is for a public cause. The respondent stated that ICA is different from RTI Act and the same cannot be considered together. The appellant stated that no guidelines have been provided to him despite FAA’s order, he stated that he does not wish to know the rates being charged by the agents, but only the guidelines/rules on the basis of which the activities of the gents are being supervised. The respondent stated that the Container Manual is available on their official website. The appellant stated that the same will not give him complete information, for which he again emphasised on the copy of the agency agreement.
Decision:
After hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the appellant to furnish written submission, latest by 10th October, 2014, clarifying each query; a copy of which shall be sent to the respondent as well. The respondents are directed to furnish written submission, latest by 24th October, 2014, clearly stating his arguments/averments against the submissions made by the appellant; a copy of the same shall also be furnished to the appellant. The Commission shall pass final orders on receipt of submissions from both parties. Fresh notices of hearing will be issued, if desired.
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri H.P. Jindal v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., in F.No.CIC/YA/A/2013/000004YA