Central Information Commission Shri Shailendra Bhadauriya vs Bharat Earth Movers Limited on 11 February, 2009 Central Information Commission Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00194 & 717SM dated 02.08.2007 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Dated 11.02.2009 Appellant : Shri Shailendra Bhadauriya Respondent : Bharat Earth Movers Limited The Appellant, is present. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri B.R.S. Reddy, GM, is present The brief facts of the case are as under. 2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO, in a letter dated 2 August 2007, seeking the list of all the participants in a certain limited tender enquiry invited by the Company on 27 May 2006 and opened on 9 June 2006 along with the rates quoted by each individual party. The CPIO replied to him on 27 August 2007 and denied the information on the ground that disclosure of such information in regard to other individual bidders who quoted in that limited tender, being in the nature of the commercial confidence, was exempt under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI). Dissatisfied with this reply, he filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The first Appellate Authority decided his appeal in his order dated 30 October 2007 and upheld the decision of the CPIO and rejected the appeal. It is against this order that the Appellant has now approached the Commission in second appeal. 3. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted written comments along with the copies of certain communications between the Company and one M/S Atul Engineering Udyog, one of the bidders in the limited tender. On the basis of those communications, the Respondent argued that the present Appellant was acting on behalf of that particular bidder with whom, in the meanwhile, the Company had had a dispute for recovery of a large amount of money. The Respondent submitted that if the detailed information regarding the other bidders was disclosed to one of the bidders, it could adversely affect the commercial competitiveness of those other parties and, therefore, the information sought should not be disclosed. He also submitted that in order to protect the interests of the Company, a PSU, engaged in a dispute with M/s Atul Engineering Udyog, this information should not be disclosed to the Appellant who was seeking the information on behalf of that party. The Appellant submitted that the allegations of the Respondent were not right and that he was seeking the information all by himself. 4. The real issue in this case is whether a citizen, even if he is a bidder, can ask for information with regard to the tender which has already been finalised and decided. In our view, the information in regard to the details of a tender, after it has been finalised and awarded, should be available in the public domain and cannot be held back as exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the details about the tender including the list of all the participants and the rates quoted by each of them as desired by the Appellant in his application dated to August 2007. 5. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off. 6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar