Details of payment made by SEBI to Rigved Technologies Private Ltd for a Tender - Respondent: Information relates to commercial confidence of a third party; A sub-contractor is putting forth a commercial dispute to the RTI forum - CIC: Denial upheld

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:

“Please provide information related to total payment and payment details made to Rigved Technologies Private Limited under Tender/REP issued by the SEBI for Annual Maintenance Contract for IMSS-DWBIS Project in the year 2019. Provide invoice raised by Rigved Technologies and ledger account of payment made thereunder.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The information sought by you includes commercial confidential information, the disclosure of which would hamper the competitive position of a third party, and hence is exempt 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; of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information sought is available to SEBI in fiduciary capacity and therefore the information sought is exempt. u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of RTI Act, 2005 Also, as the information sought relates to details of a third party, consent of third party was sought and the third party does not wish to divulge the sought information. Hence the same cannot be provided.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 21.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.06.2023.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Santosh Kumar, CGM & CPIO along with Mohd. Atif Alvi, General Manager attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant reiterated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application as stated in the grounds of second appeal as under:

“A. Appellant also made it clear that Appellant was part of the said work as some of the required material was supplied by Appellant to RIGVED TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED which was utilized under the said tender.

B. RIGVED TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED assured Appellant to reimburse the payment for the material supplied to it only after receipt of the payment from SEBI. Amount of Rs. 1,73,13,796/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Three Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred & Ninety Six Only) plus interest is due against Rigved as on date. The same is not paid by them to us till date

C. Appellant issued legal notice to Rigved demanding unpaid debts. RIGVED TECHNOLOGIES replied to the same contending that payment is not received from SEBI to RIGVED.”

That, therefore, Appellant being supplier of material to Rigved Technologies himself was part and parcel of the said project and since information relates to payment made under a particular tender floated by SEBI, the question of consent of third party does not arise.

7. The Respondent submitted that the information sought for clearly related to the commercial confidence of a third party and from the averments of the Appellant it may be seen that he is putting forth a commercial dispute to the RTI forum which is not appropriate. It was further submitted that the Appellant is a sub-contractor with the averred third party and the third party has clearly denied their consent to the disclosure of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that as far as the mandate of the RTI Act is concerned, the details sought for by the Appellant clearly relate to a third party’s information entailing commercial confidence and this is more so in the face of the dispute that is being alleged by the Appellant as ensuing between him and the averred third party. For the said reason, the Commission does not find any substance in the contentions of the Appellant and observes that the reply provided by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Aftab Memon v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, CIC/SEBIH/A/2023/630643; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025