You have sought the information on the tender defining work, cost and details of the companies participated in the bid for the proposed steel bridge (Basaveshwara Circle-Hebbal). You have also sought information on bid amount among others.
But, your application will not fall under the definition of ‘information’ as per rule 2 (f) RTI Act 2005:
The Karnataka Information Commission case number (KIC 12704 and 12705/2009) on December 8, 2010 (Mumbai High Court WP 419/2007 of 2008, Dr Stella Pinto Vs Goa Information Commission) - “The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question ‘why’ which would be same thing as asking reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justification or matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and caution properly be classified as information.” – decisions cannot be questioned.
Moreover, as per section 2 (j) RTI Act 2005 information cannot be entertained as we have to create information. This point has been clearly stated by the Central Information Commission.
(Creation of Information: under 2 (j) of RTI Act 2005 only information as held by or under the control of any public authority can constitute a Right to Information for which a citizen can claim access. This cannot be construed to demand creation of information as has been sought in the first case in this matter, asking measurements to be taken. Here too, even if Chief Architect is to be considered custodian of information, it is not clear how he can be asked to create information if not in his possession. CIC/WB/A/2006/00379,00380 and 00381, 21/12/2006)
As we need to compile information asked by you and since there is lack of clarity in your application we cannot entertain your request. This has been clarified by the CIC:
To compile or not to compile – information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, provided of course the information is available in the form required by him. The appellant for instance, has sought certain statistical information, such as the number of disputed cases settled under different schemes, which would be given, provided it exists in the form in which the appellant has asked for. They ought not to be manipulated in any form, lest the purpose of scrutinising of public action by the civil society should get defeated. - 225/IC(A)/2006/30/01/2006.
The information cannot be provided because the project is in its initial stages. This has been clarified by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission: Processing stage information need not be given. Case number – 1329/2006 dated 2/08/2006. Opinion of the commission to TNPSC.
As fas as this commission is considered all the details regarding the selection process, after the selection process is completed are no longer exempted from the RTI Act. It is our considered view that the TNPSC has been set up for fair and independent selection of candidates to fill various posts in government and this function of TNPSC shall remain supreme without bearing any interference by any query under the RTI Act. Once this function has been discharged the jurisdiction of the information commission cannot be excluded and the transparency requirements cannot be denied.
You have sought a bulk information. This requires utilisation of large resources and as valuable time of the government will have to be spent, we cannot provide the information. As per 7 (9) of the RTI Act 2005, this has been clearly clarified:
“The logic of the argument of the respondents is compelling. The spirit and the letter of sub section 9 of section 7 of the Act is that even when it is established that a given information is to be disclosed, it may still not be given the appellant if it can be shown that its disclosure would involve disproportionately large diversion of resources of the public authority. The information now requested by the appellant, undoubtedly, falls in this category. I am, therefore, constrained to hold the disclosure of the information urged by the appellant could not be authorised in view of the CIC/AT/A/2006/00300/13/12/2006.”
We reject the information sought by as it is about third persons/institutions, private information and there is no public interest as per section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. For the information of the applicant, we have provided the details of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005: (Provided that except in case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party)
The honourable Supreme Court special leave petition (civil) number 27734/2012 @ CC14781(2012) directed as follows:
15. “The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bonafide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.”
16. “We are, therefore of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for the larger public interest. This being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.”
As per section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act the information sought by you relates to the contract terms and conditions between the BDA and the tenderers. We cannot provide information sought by you as it is related to state's action plan and economic interests as per section (1) (8) (a) of the Act. Shivashankar, engineering officer-1 BDA, T Chowdaiah Road, B’lore will be the appealing authority. Any appeal against this order can be filed within 30 days.
(Note: Certain words/sentences in the letter that are in Kannada have been translated)
But, your application will not fall under the definition of ‘information’ as per rule 2 (f) RTI Act 2005:
The Karnataka Information Commission case number (KIC 12704 and 12705/2009) on December 8, 2010 (Mumbai High Court WP 419/2007 of 2008, Dr Stella Pinto Vs Goa Information Commission) - “The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question ‘why’ which would be same thing as asking reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justification or matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and caution properly be classified as information.” – decisions cannot be questioned.
Moreover, as per section 2 (j) RTI Act 2005 information cannot be entertained as we have to create information. This point has been clearly stated by the Central Information Commission.
(Creation of Information: under 2 (j) of RTI Act 2005 only information as held by or under the control of any public authority can constitute a Right to Information for which a citizen can claim access. This cannot be construed to demand creation of information as has been sought in the first case in this matter, asking measurements to be taken. Here too, even if Chief Architect is to be considered custodian of information, it is not clear how he can be asked to create information if not in his possession. CIC/WB/A/2006/00379,00380 and 00381, 21/12/2006)
As we need to compile information asked by you and since there is lack of clarity in your application we cannot entertain your request. This has been clarified by the CIC:
To compile or not to compile – information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, provided of course the information is available in the form required by him. The appellant for instance, has sought certain statistical information, such as the number of disputed cases settled under different schemes, which would be given, provided it exists in the form in which the appellant has asked for. They ought not to be manipulated in any form, lest the purpose of scrutinising of public action by the civil society should get defeated. - 225/IC(A)/2006/30/01/2006.
The information cannot be provided because the project is in its initial stages. This has been clarified by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission: Processing stage information need not be given. Case number – 1329/2006 dated 2/08/2006. Opinion of the commission to TNPSC.
As fas as this commission is considered all the details regarding the selection process, after the selection process is completed are no longer exempted from the RTI Act. It is our considered view that the TNPSC has been set up for fair and independent selection of candidates to fill various posts in government and this function of TNPSC shall remain supreme without bearing any interference by any query under the RTI Act. Once this function has been discharged the jurisdiction of the information commission cannot be excluded and the transparency requirements cannot be denied.
You have sought a bulk information. This requires utilisation of large resources and as valuable time of the government will have to be spent, we cannot provide the information. As per 7 (9) of the RTI Act 2005, this has been clearly clarified:
“The logic of the argument of the respondents is compelling. The spirit and the letter of sub section 9 of section 7 of the Act is that even when it is established that a given information is to be disclosed, it may still not be given the appellant if it can be shown that its disclosure would involve disproportionately large diversion of resources of the public authority. The information now requested by the appellant, undoubtedly, falls in this category. I am, therefore, constrained to hold the disclosure of the information urged by the appellant could not be authorised in view of the CIC/AT/A/2006/00300/13/12/2006.”
We reject the information sought by as it is about third persons/institutions, private information and there is no public interest as per section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. For the information of the applicant, we have provided the details of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005: (Provided that except in case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party)
The honourable Supreme Court special leave petition (civil) number 27734/2012 @ CC14781(2012) directed as follows:
15. “The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bonafide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.”
16. “We are, therefore of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for the larger public interest. This being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.”
As per section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act the information sought by you relates to the contract terms and conditions between the BDA and the tenderers. We cannot provide information sought by you as it is related to state's action plan and economic interests as per section (1) (8) (a) of the Act. Shivashankar, engineering officer-1 BDA, T Chowdaiah Road, B’lore will be the appealing authority. Any appeal against this order can be filed within 30 days.
(Note: Certain words/sentences in the letter that are in Kannada have been translated)