CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No.ICPB/A-4/CIC/2006

February 10, 2006

In the matter of Right to Information Act-Section 6/18

Name of appellant:       Shri Rajesh Pandita, Regional Manager
                                   M/S Neptune Equipment Private Ltd.

Name of public authority:  CPIO, Department of Post

DECISION

Decision appealed against:

The appellant has sought for the reasons for cancellation of a tender in which it had participated.  The CPIO, by a communication dated 7.11.2005, declined to furnish the information sought on the ground that decision to cancel the tender was taken as per clause 7 of NIT and thus expressing the Department’s inability to give further information. In the same communication, the appellate was advised to prefer an  appeal directly to this Commission on the ground that the decision had been taken at the highest level in the Department.

Grounds of appeal:       

According to the appellant, in a tender floated by the Department of Post for supply of garage   equipment, it had quoted for supply of Diesel Smoke Analyzer and it was  declared qualified both in technical and commercial bids and being L1,  it was expecting to get a supply order.  However, without assigning any reason, the Department of Posts had cancelled the entire tender. Even though, in terms of Clause 7 of  NIT, the Department has the right to accept or reject any offer without assigning any reason, yet, in terms of the RTI Act, the appellant has the right to seek the reason for rejection of the tender.  It is further stated in the appeal that according to the appellant’s information, the tender was cancelled at the instance of one of the participants in the tender which was disqualified, both in technical and commercial bids. It is further stated in the appeal that by canceling the entire tender, the Department of Post has flouted the strict norms of transparency and with the connivance with the complainant,  the Department of Post had cancelled the tender. Accordingly, the appellant has not only asked for the reasons for cancellation but also has asked for directions to the Department of Post to give a supply order to the appellant.

Commission’s decision:    

At the outset, we would like to point out that when RTI Act specifically provides for the first appeal to the appellate authority of the concerned public authority, it was wrong on the part of the CPIO, Department of Post to have advised the appellant to prefer the first appeal itself to the Commission directly on the ground that the decision to deny the information had been taken at the highest level. Irrespective of at what level a decision is taken, the procedure prescribed by the Statute cannot be given a go by. We would have referred the matter back to the concerned appellate authority of the Department of Post to consider the appeal  but considering the hardship that is  likely to be caused to the appellant, we are disposing of the appeal.

Direction:

Any rejection of request for information has to be in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. In the present case, the CPIO has not relied on  any of the exemption provided in the RTI Act to reject the request for supply of information sought for by the appellant except that in terms of Clause 7 of the NIT, the DG Posts has the right to reject an offer without assigning any reason. The main theme of RTI Act is that there should be transparency in decision making and therefore, the appellant is entitle to know the reasons for cancellation of the tender. In her comments furnished to the commission on the appeal, the CPIO has furnished elaborate information from which we find that there are no justifiable grounds to reject the information sought for by the appellant.  Therefore, we direct the CPIO, Department of Post to give factual information relating to the  reasons for rejection of the tender within 15 days from the date of this order. As far as the prayer of the appellant for a direction to the Department of Posts to issue supply order is concerned, in terms of RTI Act, this Commission has no powers to issue such directions.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and the CPIO.

(Padma Balasubramanian)

Information Commissioner

( M. M. Ansari )

Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

( P. K. Gera )

Registrar