Purchase Order placed by Damodar Valley Corporation was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - Respondent: A direct purchase order was placed by DVC and not through open tender; Purchase order contains various commercial confidential details - CIC: Appeal dismissed

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:  

Please supply the certified copy of the Purchase Order placed by Damodar Valley Corporation vide CP/SECT-HQ/GOLDCOIN/2022-23/553012 dated 26.09.2022.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

This information relates to commercial confidence and trade secrets, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party. Hence, the disclosure of the information sought for is exempted 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; of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading.

The FAA vide order dated 14.07.2023 stated that:

The Purchase Order has been issued by DVC to India Government Mint, Kolkata and it is a contractual agreement between the two organizations. Further, it consists of sensitive information w.r.t. design & others relevant details of the Purchase Order. Hence, the information is exempted 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; & 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 the RTI Act, 2005 being commercial confidence, trade secrets and fiduciary relationship between DVC and India Govt. Mint, Kolkata, Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.09.2023.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in-person and on behalf of the respondent Shri Indradeep, DGM, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia requested that the matter be taken up before a different Bench of the Commission and his plea was not accepted. The appellant was not willing to argue on the merits of the case.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia relied upon their written submissions dated 06.01.2025, extracted below:

“This pertains to RTI application dated 27.05.2023, wherein in the RTI, Purchase order sought has been issued by DVC to India Government Mint, Kolkata and it is a contractual agreement between two organizations. Further the Purchase order contains commercial confidence and trade secrets w.r.t Design & Other relevant details the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party. Hence the information is exempted under section 8 (1) (d) & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 being commercial confidence, trade secrets and fiduciary relationship between DVC and India Government Mint, Kolkata, Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd.

The references drawn here refers to Section 8 (1) (d) & 8 (i) (e) of RTI Act 2005. wherein it is mentioned that 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 and information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship.

Further, the Purchase Order sought was placed by M/s Damodar Valley Corporation to India Government Mint, Kolkata to procure gold coins for distribution to its own regular employees who are on roll of DVC and Bermo Mines. The given Purchase order contains various commercial confidential details like Coins design, trade secrets of IGMK, information about Damodar Valley Corporation available with India Government Mint, Kolkata as a part of fiduciary relationship.”

The respondent further stated that a direct purchase order was placed by Damodar Valley Corporation and not through open tender.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent has given an appropriate response, as per the provisions of the RTI Act and the reasons cited in their written submissions dated 06.01.2025 for denial of the information are found to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Besides, the respondent confirmed during the hearing in addition to their written submissions dated 06.01.2025 that a direct purchase order was placed by Damodar Valley Corporation and not through open tender. The Commission finds no larger public interest for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ashok Kumar Jain v. India Government Mint, Kolkata, CIC/IGMKO/A/2023/646650; Date of Decision: 16.01.2025