RTI Reply on a ₹4.2 Crore Road Contract
On 3 March, a resident of a J&K district files an RTI application with the PIO of the PWD circle seeking the comparative statement and tender evaluation report for a ₹4.2 crore road contract awarded on 18 January. The PIO forwards the file to you, the junior engineer who prepared the evaluation, on 25 March. You return a one-line reply on 12 April citing 'commercial confidence of the bidder' and 'third-party information', without issuing any notice to the bidders. The applicant files a first appeal on 20 April; the same week a local newspaper publishes a report alleging favouritism. Your executive engineer asks you to prepare a note on the timeline, the legality of the denial, and the forum in which the department now stands. The contract is already under execution and the bid documents are in your custody.
1. Compute the statutory timeline and identify each breach.
Read the worked answer
The application was received by the PIO on 3 March. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the reply is due within 30 days, that is by 2 April. The reply on 12 April is 10 days late.
The PIO forwarded the file internally on 25 March. Internal forwarding does not restart or extend the 30-day clock; the PIO remains responsible for the reply. The first appeal filed on 20 April is within the 30-day period allowed by Section 19(1). The first appellate authority must be an officer senior in rank to the PIO and should decide within 30 days, extendable to 45 days with reasons. A second appeal would lie with the J&K Information Commission within 90 days.
For the 10-day delay, Section 20 exposes the PIO to a penalty of ₹250 per day, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000 - about ₹2,500 here - unless the PIO shows reasonable cause. The internal forwarding memo is evidence of the office process, not a defence for the delay.
2. Assess whether the denial under 'commercial confidence' and 'third-party information' is sustainable.
Read the worked answer
The one-line denial is not sustainable on these facts. Section 8(1)(d) protects commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property only where disclosure would harm a competitive position. A comparative statement and evaluation report for a completed, awarded public contract are normally disclosable; the bidders' wish that the figures remain private is not by itself a valid exemption. Section 8(2) requires disclosure where public interest outweighs the harm, and the newspaper allegation of favouritism strengthens that public interest.
'Third-party information' is not a standalone exemption. Section 11 requires written notice to the third party within five days, an opportunity to make a representation, and a decision within 40 days. No notice was issued, so the procedure is defective.
The proper course is to release the comparative statement and evaluation report, redacting only genuine commercial secrets (for example proprietary method statements) and personal data such as PAN or bank details, supported by a reasoned order that applies the exemption clause by clause.
3. What should the department do now, before the first appellate authority and afterwards?
Read the worked answer
Prepare a written submission before the first appellate authority conceding the procedural lapse, releasing the redacted record, and explaining each redaction. Do not repeat the 'commercial confidence' claim without evidence.
Record the date of receipt, the date of reply and the reason for delay in an RTI register. Designate a trained PIO and a backup, set a 20-day internal deadline, and route technical queries to the JE in parallel rather than by forward-and-wait. If the Commission levies a penalty, do not reimburse it from public funds.
Finally, segregate the evaluation file from the bid documents so that future requests can be answered without reconstructing the file. A short, reasoned reply issued on time is cheaper than a penalty, a newspaper story and a Commission hearing.