LAHORE: The Punjab Information Commission (PIC) has directed the General Manager of Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Center (PKLI) to provide complete procurement related information sought by a citizen under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013, holding that pendency of proceedings before the Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) does not justify refusal of access to public information.
The order was announced by Chief Information Commissioner Muhammad Maalik Bhulla and Information Commissioner Bushra Saqib. The complainant Zafar Sardar, appeared in person while Ahsan Arif Law Officer, represented the respondent public body.
According to the order, the complainant had first approached PKLI via email dated Aug 22, 2025, seeking information and record submitted by bidders regarding technically approved products under two tenders. Receiving no response, he filed a formal RTI application on Oct 3, 2025, which led to the present complaint.
In its initial reply dated Oct 6, 2025, described by the commission as significantly delayed, the respondent stated that grievance proceedings relating to the tenders were sub judice before PPRA and that the requested information would be shared upon receipt of official communication from the authority. The same position was reiterated in a letter dated Oct 27, 2025. The commission directed the respondent to explain how Section 13(1)(f) of the RTI Act, 2013 relating to disclosure likely to hinder the administration of justice was attracted merely because the matter was pending before PPRA.
In a revised response dated Nov 18, 2025, PKLI conceded that pendency before PPRA did not fall within the ambit of Section 13(1). However, it advanced a two-pronged argument. First that disclosure might cause “procedural harm” and second that the information sought was proprietary and confidential in nature and its disclosure would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests and privacy of bidders under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(d) of the Act.
The respondent also placed on record an email dated Nov 17, 2025, from one of the bidders refusing consent to share any part of its bidding documents. The Commission noted that consent had been sought only with respect to one of the tenders mentioned in the RTI application and no position of any bidder regarding the second tender (PRO/180/2024) had been produced.
Both parties informed the commission that the procurement process had been completed the contract awarded and the successful bidder had commenced supply of the relevant items.
In its detailed reasoning, the Commission held that once a public body admits possession of requested information, it cannot invoke Section 13(1) of the RTI Act, 2013 to “wriggle out” of its statutory obligation without substantiating actual and demonstrable harm.
On the plea of commercial interest, the Commission found that the requested information related to product attributes, origin and regulatory approvals, and did not concern financial aspects of bids. The respondent had failed to explain how disclosure would harm any legitimate commercial interest of a third party.
