Information regarding the assignment of outdoor advertisement rights of various sites under the jurisdiction of DMC & private entities would be protected u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: Exemption shall cease to apply if the allegations of tax evasion are substantiated
20 Apr, 2018ORDER
1. The present batch of eight (08) appeal emanate from respective RTI applications, all dated 08.05.2017 seeking multifaceted information regarding the assignment of outdoor advertisement rights of various sites under the jurisdiction of North Delhi Municipal Corporation on cluster basis.
2. As per the provisions of DMC Act and specifically Section 142 of the said Act, prior permission of the Commissioner is required to place any advertisement in public view. Such advertisement rights site/cluster basis on competitive value bidding system to private entity. In the present clutch of appeals, the appellant has sought identical information regarding various distinct clusters. For instance, information sought in one of the appeals is reproduced hereinafter:
“Kindly provide following details with all documentary evidences which relates to Cluster-2 – Civil Line Zone i.e. M/s Manoj Kumar (Licensee/advertiser of Cluster – 2 – Civil Line Zone):
1. List and details of all the authorised outdoor advertising sites including all type of categories with following terms: a) Media b) zone c) exact location d) location ID e) size of advertisement f) MLFg) start date of permission h) end date of permission i) ward number
2. Supply the all complaints received against unauthorised outdoor advertisement in cluster-2-Civil Line Zone from 1st July, 2015 to till date and also provide their action taken reports on the basis of these complaints.
3. Supply the all action taken reports against the unauthorised outdoor advertisements done by department from 1st July 2015 to till date.
4. list and details of new outdoor advertisements sites approved by North DMC from 1st July 2015 to till date including all types of categores with exact location and size of advertisements.
5. Month wise all the details of advertisement tax received by Manoj Kumar (Licensee/advertiser of cluster -2-civil line zone) from 1st July, 2015 to till date (including month wise number of sites, every site tax details etc.
6. Details of all the penalties imposed to Manoj Kumar (Licensee/advertiser of cluster-2 – civil line one) from 1st July, 2015 till date.
7. Details of authorised officials in administration (name, designation, mobile) of North DMC those are responsible to verify all the rules and regulations are followed by licensee/advertiser)
8. details of all the inspectors, visitors, surveyors or any other administrative (name, designation, mobile) who verifying legal identity time to time of advertisement sites in cluster-2-civil line zone)”
3. While replying to the respective RTI applications the PIO furnished all material information except for the copies of the agreements entered to between the private party and North DMC. The said request was denied citing Section 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; and same came to be upheld by their First Appellate Authority. It is worthwhile to mention that the PIO furnished advertisement tax received from the licencee etc. The appellant also sought copies of all complaints received against the licencees alongwith the action taken reports. He further sought details of unauthorised outdoor advertisements recorded in various clusters besides seeking details of penalties imposed on the authorised licencees etc.
4. Both the parties are present and heard at length. The appellant alleges loss of revenue due to inefficient administration by the advertisement department of North DMC. It is his contention that the licencees to whom advertisement rights of a particular cluster are allotted commit fragrant violations of terms of award of licence and cause to display unauthorised advertisements. He clarifies that the private licencee manipulates the figures of the advertisement displayed and evade the tax due towards department. Highlighting this he states that details of all complaints made against all cluster licencees in the respective clusters. He states to be pursuing the cause of larger public interest and hence seeks for furnishing copies of agreements entered to by North DMC and private parties on the premise that larger public interest in the present matter outweighs the requirement of keeping commercial confidentiality of the private parties.
5. On the other hand the PIO states that as per section 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; the copies of agreements were denied to the appellant. However, rest of the information has been furnished to the appellant. Upon a query from the Commission, the PIO states no separate complaint monitoring system is kept in place for outdoor advertisements exclusively and any such complaint received is processed on the case to case basis.
6. After hearing the parties and perusal of record, the Commission is of the considered view that copies of agreements entered to between North DMC and private entities would be protected under section 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; . However, the exemption shall cease to apply if the allegations of tax evasion are substantiated. However, in the facts of present case, none of the contentions raised by the appellant are backed by cogent material so as to overrule the commercial interests of the private party with that of larger public interest. Hence, the Commission concludes that the copies of agreements sought by the appellant cannot be furnished to him. However, the appellant shall be entitled to know the names of authorities who verify the advertisement sites in all the clusters. In the course of hearing the PIO assured the Commission that there is no violation committed by the private licencees and hence the allegations of tax evasion are unfounded.
7. However, before parting away with the present issue, the Commission directs the PIO. Advertisement Department, North DMC to file an affidavit before the Commission citing any instance of violation of terms of award of licence or tax evasion detected at any of its advertisement clusters. The affidavit shall be filed within 6 weeks of receipt of this order after physical verification at various sites.
The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: NITIN KUMAR MITTAL v. PIO/Hq. Advertisement, North DMC in F. No. CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/171401 CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/171402 CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/171403 CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/171405 CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/171407 CIC/NDMCC/A/2017/171390 CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/171394 CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/171399, Date of Decision : 27.02.2018