welcome to Commercial Confidence etc.. | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
46	CIC/LS/A/2012/002379 (37.06 KB)	04 Jan, 2013	M.C. Gupta Vs HPCL The appellant sought certain information i.e. noting/ records on the basis of which minimum and maximum rates or transportation of petroleum products in Free Delivery Zone (FDZ) and beyond FDZ were prescribed – the public authority contended that the calculation of minimum and maximum rates has been done by an Expert Agency viz. KPMG, costing the company a consideration amount and it is the intellectual property of HPCL. If this information is disclosed, then HPCL will not be able to follow this model in regard to all future tenders. It is contended that the requested information is of commercial confidence to HPCL and cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act- The Commission held that the information in-question is of commercial confidence. There is no infirmity in the decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority.
47	CIC/LS/A/2011/003384 (41.51 KB)	06 Jul, 2012	K V.R.K Raju Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence The FAA came to the conclusion that the tender details submitted by the bidders and correspondences with them are third party information which would harm their competitive position. Such information is covered u/s 8(I)(d). However, the contracts entered into after conclusion of the tendering process cannot be considered as confidential. Such information is not covered u/s 8 (1) (d). Similarly, information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has not been treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed. Information treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed after giving a written notice to such third party as per section 11, if the public interest in disclosure out weights in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party — the Commission upheld the decision of the Appellant Authority for the reason stated by the Appellate Authority.
48	CIC/SG/A/2012/001483/19457 (74.79 KB)	04 Jul, 2012	Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas v Indian Rare Earth Ltd., Mumbai Section 8 (1) (d) — Commercial Confidence The Commission held that it is not able to see how disclosing the quantities that were sold would affect any commercial interests of the respondent. The Commission set aside the decision of the PIO and the FAA and directed the PIO to supply the information.
49	CIC/AD/A/2012/001151 (206.66 KB)	28 Jun, 2012	K Ramesh Vs. Southern Railway, Chennai Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence — The Commission held that the qualifications of personnel working for the third party are denied to the Appellant as information belonging to a third party, the disclosure of which has no relation with any public activity or interest.
50	CIC/DS/A/2011/003007 (87.90 KB)	25 Jun, 2012	K Ramachandran Nair v National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kochi Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence The Commission held that the expenses incurred by the Public Authority for organizing Development Conference held at Poovar Resort in Trivandrum is out of Public Funds and same cannot be denied under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Information as held should be provided to the Appellant.
51	CIC/LS/A/2011/003922 (32.24 KB)	19 Jun, 2012	Rakesh Thakur v HPCL, Mumbai Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence The appellant had sought copy of the dealership agreement between M/S Kumar Service Station and HPCL The Commission held that the appellant is a third party. The agreement signed between the parties, indeed, has commercial confidentiality. Besides, this document is being held by HPCL in fiduciary capacity. No infirmity in the decisions of the CPIO and AA.
52	CIC/LS/A/2011/003088 (35.13 KB)	05 Jun, 2012	Satyender Kumar v Directorate General Resettlement Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence The Commission held that the DGR as a public authority is expected to function in a fair and transparent manner. It will not be correct not to disclose the names of empanelled companies/firms. It is quite possible that the number of empanelled companies/firms is very large. If that be the case, then the appellant may be invited to inspect the relevant records. If the number of companies/firms is below 100, then their names and addresses should be disclosed to the appellant.
53	CIC/SS/A/2012/000184 (196.55 KB)	29 May, 2012	Aseem Takyar Vs. National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence The appellant had filed an application and sought certified copies of the structural drawing, elevation drawing, section drawing, nomenclature and schedule of items, quantities of all planned ‘FOB’ (Foot Over Bridge) in respect of NH-I Section within Panipat to Jalandhar. The CPIO denied information under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act The Commission held that the information as sought for by the appellant is exempted under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.
54	CIC/DS/A/2011/000841 (206.85 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Kulbhushan Jain Vs. SBI, Vijaywada, Hyderabad Section 8(1)(d) – Commercial Confidence – The commission held that there is a larger public interest involved in disclosing the year-wise aggregate settled amount by the banks with the defaulting parties as it will help in transparent functioning of the public authority which is the very objective of the RTI Act. Accordingly Commission directed the respondent to furnish information limited to the total number of entities who have defaulted and the total settled amount.
55	CIC/DS/A/2011/001046 (206.27 KB)	19 Mar, 2012	Rakesh Sharma Vs. SBI, Moradabad, Lucknow Section 8(1)(d) - Commercial Confidence – The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, SBI, Moradabad seeking copies of the letters submitted by NBHC Ltd. Mumbai against pledging the stock of NBHC with SBI The commission held that the appellant has not provided any larger public interest in disclosure of third party information. Accordingly upheld the order of the CPIO.
56	CIC/SG/A/2012/000110/17587 (63.35 KB)	09 Mar, 2012	S.L. Songara Vs. Mr. O.M. Prakash, PIO & AGM, Bank of India, Zonal Office – Rajasthan Zone, Star House, B-4, Sector-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur Section 8(1)(d) - Commercial Confidence The appellant has sought a copy of letter written by Sh. P.D. Sankhla /M.L. Sankhla the then Charter president of Jeengar Sansthan Regd. No. 508/ Jaipur 98-99 to restrain the Saving Bank Account No. 660110100019190 by the newly elected executive committee in the month of June 2011 The Commission held that the Society is not a commercial body and the nature of information is such that it cannot be considered commercial confidence and revealing it cannot hurt anybody's competitive position. The commission did not accept the plea for exemption made by the PIO. The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant.
57	CIC/SM/A/2010/001513 (206.28 KB)	26 Sep, 2011	Shri Amit Kumar Rohtak Vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Karnal (Haryana). The Appellant had wanted some details regarding the account(s) of the Vaish College of Engineering. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC agreed with the decision of the CPIO. Since the account of the College is maintained in the bank in commercial confidence, ordinarily, details about it cannot be disclosed to anyone. Since there are three signatories to this account who are to operate it jointly, the no objection given by one of the signatories cannot be construed as an authorisation for seeking such details.
58	CIC/SS/A/2011/000241 (266.59 KB)	15 Sep, 2011	Ms. Puneet Saluja Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi. The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 06/10/2010 had sought certain information in respect to the exports made to some buyer, M/s Island Line Trading LLC through her proprietorship concern, M/s. Ena International. CIC observed that, a contract entered into by the public authority with a private person cannot be treated as confidential after completion of contract. However, in the present case, CIC held that, In a competitive market where there are various agencies and corporations carrying out similar business as the Respondent, the Respondent is right in holding that disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant under the abovementioned Questions will harm its competitive and is therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. There also does not seem any larger public interest involved in the present case which warrants the disclosure of the said information.
59	CIC/SM/A/2010/001233 (207.37 KB)	13 Sep, 2011	Shri Prem Chand Ferozepur City, Punjab. Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi. The Appellant had wanted to know the details about the transfer of certain amount from a joint account held in the name of two individuals, one of whom had passed away, to another account held by some other individual. The CIC/SM/A/2010/001233 CPIO had informed the Appellant that the desired information could not be parted since the Appellant had not disclosed his relationship with the account holders and that such information was exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC held that, Even if the Appellant is in possession of a will, the bank cannot be expected to disclose the details of the transaction made by one of its customers without a valid direction from a court of law. Appeal dismissed.
60	CIC/SM/A/2010/000996 (206.03 KB)	28 Mar, 2011	Smt. Sujita Behal Delhi Vs. CPIO, Central Bank of India, Delhi. The Appellant had sought some 10 items of information regarding the salary and other payments made to an employee of the Bank, her husband in CIC/SM/A/2010/000996 this case, with whom she had a marital dispute. Initially, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming it to be third party personal information. However, on the direction of the Appellate Authority, he provided some of the information. The Respondent submitted that the account number and other details of the account could not be disclosed being held in commercial confidence and, in any case, being exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC agreed with the views of the Respondents. The account number even if it happens to be that of the husband of the Appellant cannot be disclosed by the Bank as this kind of information is exempt from disclosure.

46

CIC/LS/A/2012/002379
(37.06 KB) pdf icon

04 Jan, 2013

M.C. Gupta Vs HPCL

The appellant sought certain information i.e. noting/ records on the basis of which minimum and maximum rates or transportation of petroleum products in Free Delivery Zone (FDZ) and beyond FDZ were prescribed – the public authority contended that the calculation of minimum and maximum rates has been done by an Expert Agency viz. KPMG, costing the company a consideration amount and it is the intellectual property of HPCL. If this information is disclosed, then HPCL will not be able to follow this model in regard to all future tenders. It is contended that the requested information is of commercial confidence to HPCL and cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act-

The Commission held that the information in-question is of commercial confidence. There is no infirmity in the decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority.

47

CIC/LS/A/2011/003384
(41.51 KB) pdf icon

06 Jul, 2012

K V.R.K Raju Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd.

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence
The FAA came to the conclusion that the tender details submitted by the bidders and correspondences with them are third party information which would harm their competitive position. Such information is covered u/s 8(I)(d). However, the contracts entered into after conclusion of the tendering process cannot be considered as confidential. Such information is not covered u/s 8 (1) (d). Similarly, information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has not been treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed. Information treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed after giving a written notice to such third party as per section 11, if the public interest in disclosure out weights in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party — the Commission upheld the decision of the Appellant Authority for the reason stated by the Appellate Authority.

48

CIC/SG/A/2012/001483/19457
(74.79 KB) pdf icon

04 Jul, 2012

Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas v Indian Rare Earth Ltd., Mumbai

Section 8 (1) (d) — Commercial Confidence
The Commission held that it is not able to see how disclosing the quantities that were sold would affect any commercial interests of the respondent. The Commission set aside the decision of the PIO and the FAA and directed the PIO to supply the information.

49

CIC/AD/A/2012/001151
(206.66 KB) pdf icon

28 Jun, 2012

K Ramesh Vs. Southern Railway, Chennai

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence —
The Commission held that the qualifications of personnel working for the third party are denied to the Appellant as information belonging to a third party, the disclosure of which has no relation with any public activity or interest.

50

CIC/DS/A/2011/003007
(87.90 KB) pdf icon

25 Jun, 2012

K Ramachandran Nair v National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kochi

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence
The Commission held that the expenses incurred by the Public Authority for organizing Development Conference held at Poovar Resort in Trivandrum is out of Public Funds and same cannot be denied under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Information as held should be provided to the Appellant.

51

CIC/LS/A/2011/003922
(32.24 KB) pdf icon

19 Jun, 2012

Rakesh Thakur v HPCL, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence

The appellant had sought copy of the dealership agreement between M/S Kumar Service Station and HPCL
The Commission held that the appellant is a third party. The agreement signed between the parties, indeed, has commercial confidentiality. Besides, this document is being held by HPCL in fiduciary capacity. No infirmity in the decisions of the CPIO and AA.

52

CIC/LS/A/2011/003088
(35.13 KB) pdf icon

05 Jun, 2012

Satyender Kumar v Directorate General Resettlement

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence

The Commission held that the DGR as a public authority is expected to function in a fair and transparent manner. It will not be correct not to disclose the names of empanelled companies/firms. It is quite possible that the number of empanelled companies/firms is very large. If that be the case, then the appellant may be invited to inspect the relevant records. If the number of companies/firms is below 100, then their names and addresses should be disclosed to the appellant.

53

CIC/SS/A/2012/000184
(196.55 KB) pdf icon

29 May, 2012

Aseem Takyar Vs. National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(d) — Commercial Confidence
The appellant had filed an application and sought certified copies of the structural drawing, elevation drawing, section drawing, nomenclature and schedule of items, quantities of all planned ‘FOB’ (Foot Over Bridge) in respect of NH-I Section within Panipat to Jalandhar. The CPIO denied information under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act
The Commission held that the information as sought for by the appellant is exempted under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.

54

CIC/DS/A/2011/000841
(206.85 KB) pdf icon

21 Mar, 2012

Kulbhushan Jain Vs. SBI, Vijaywada, Hyderabad

Section 8(1)(d) – Commercial Confidence –
The commission held that there is a larger public interest involved in disclosing the year-wise aggregate settled amount by the banks with the defaulting parties as it will help in transparent functioning of the public authority which is the very objective of the RTI Act. Accordingly Commission directed the respondent to furnish information limited to the total number of entities who have defaulted and the total settled amount.

55

CIC/DS/A/2011/001046
(206.27 KB) pdf icon

19 Mar, 2012

Rakesh Sharma Vs. SBI, Moradabad, Lucknow

Section 8(1)(d) - Commercial Confidence –
The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, SBI, Moradabad seeking copies of the letters submitted by NBHC Ltd. Mumbai against pledging the stock of NBHC with SBI
The commission held that the appellant has not provided any larger public interest in disclosure of third party information. Accordingly upheld the order of the CPIO.

56

CIC/SG/A/2012/000110/17587
(63.35 KB) pdf icon

09 Mar, 2012

S.L. Songara Vs. Mr. O.M. Prakash, PIO & AGM, Bank of India, Zonal Office – Rajasthan Zone, Star House, B-4, Sector-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur

Section 8(1)(d) - Commercial Confidence
The appellant has sought a copy of letter written by Sh. P.D. Sankhla /M.L. Sankhla the then Charter president of Jeengar Sansthan Regd. No. 508/ Jaipur 98-99 to restrain the Saving Bank Account No. 660110100019190 by the newly elected executive committee in the month of June 2011
The Commission held that the Society is not a commercial body and the nature of information is such that it cannot be considered commercial confidence and revealing it cannot hurt anybody's competitive position. The commission did not accept the plea for exemption made by the PIO. The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant.

57

CIC/SM/A/2010/001513
(206.28 KB) pdf icon

26 Sep, 2011

Shri Amit Kumar Rohtak Vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Karnal (Haryana).

The Appellant had wanted some details regarding the account(s) of the Vaish College of Engineering. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

CIC agreed with the decision of the CPIO. Since the account of the College is maintained in the bank in commercial confidence, ordinarily, details about it cannot be disclosed to anyone. Since there are three signatories to this account who are to operate it jointly, the no objection given by one of the signatories cannot be construed as an authorisation for seeking such details.

58

CIC/SS/A/2011/000241
(266.59 KB) pdf icon

15 Sep, 2011

Ms. Puneet Saluja Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi.

The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 06/10/2010 had sought certain information in respect to the exports made to some buyer, M/s Island Line Trading LLC through her proprietorship concern, M/s. Ena International.
CIC observed that, a contract entered into by the public authority with a private person cannot be treated as confidential after completion of contract. However, in the present case, CIC held that, In a competitive market where there are various agencies and corporations carrying out similar business as the Respondent, the Respondent is right in holding that disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant under the abovementioned Questions will harm its competitive and is therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. There also does not seem any larger public interest involved in the present case which warrants the disclosure of the said information.

59

CIC/SM/A/2010/001233
(207.37 KB) pdf icon

13 Sep, 2011

Shri Prem Chand Ferozepur City, Punjab. Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi.

The Appellant had wanted to know the details about the transfer of certain amount from a joint account held in the name of two individuals, one of whom had passed away, to another account held by some other individual. The CIC/SM/A/2010/001233 CPIO had informed the Appellant that the desired information could not be parted since the Appellant had not disclosed his relationship with the account holders and that such information was exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC held that, Even if the Appellant is in possession of a will, the bank cannot be expected to disclose the details of the transaction made by one of its customers without a valid direction from a court of law. Appeal dismissed.

60

CIC/SM/A/2010/000996
(206.03 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2011

Smt. Sujita Behal Delhi Vs. CPIO, Central Bank of India, Delhi.

The Appellant had sought some 10 items of information regarding the salary and other payments made to an employee of the Bank, her husband in CIC/SM/A/2010/000996 this case, with whom she had a marital dispute. Initially, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming it to be third party personal information. However, on the direction of the Appellate Authority, he provided some of the information. The Respondent submitted that the account number and other details of the account could not be disclosed being held in commercial confidence and, in any case, being exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC agreed with the views of the Respondents. The account number even if it happens to be that of the husband of the Appellant cannot be disclosed by the Bank as this kind of information is exempt from disclosure.