Information regarding the Type Test conducted at the request of Brigade Enterprises Ltd of Sandwich Type Bus Duct System at CPRI, Bangalore was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: the supplier has the right to know the norms applied for the test and the results
13 Mar, 2014ORDER
1. Appellant has filed these appeals through letters dated 30.8.13. During the hearing, appellant was represented by Shri Bala Nikit, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent public authority is represented by Shri Suhas S. Bagalkotkar, Joint Director and Shri Lakshman Murthy, Counsel for the respondent. Since both these appeals are with respect to same RTI application, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Through his RTI application dated 12.3.13, appellant has referred the Type Test conducted between 13.4.11 to 20.4.11 at the request of Brigade Enterprises Limited of Sandwich Type Bus Duct System at CPRI, Bangalore. In that reference, he has sought the copy of the requisition made by Brigade Enterprises Limited for conducting the Type Tests on 19.4.11 of Sandwich Type Bus Duct System, whether the Type Test of the Sandwich Type Bus Duct System conducted on that date was subject to any guidelines/norms and in particular, if IEC norms 6043922000 were followed. He has also asked for the instructions given for type testing by Brigade Enterprises Ltd pursuant to the appellant’s company request in their email dated 4.12.11 and a copy of the result of the said test and Test Set up drawings for the test.
3. In response to this RTI application, CPIO has given its response through letter No. CPRI/P&C/RT/2013 dated 12.4.13 in which information on most of the points was claimed to be exempted under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; . Therefore, the information was denied. Being not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, appellant has filed the first appeal which was dismissed by the FAA through its order dated 5.6.13. FAA has upheld the stand taken by the CPIO in applying S. 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; on the information sought.
4. During the hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri Bala Nikit has explained that Larsen & Toubro is a supplier of the equipment which receives those equipment from abroad. It was argued by him that the exemption claimed by the respondent is incorrect. He has submitted that though the testing was done, the reports were not given to the appellant or to his company and he must be allowed to have this information. It was submitted the information sought cannot be held to be of commercial confidence of the third party, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position. Therefore, he has submitted that the information is not exempted under S. 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; .
5. On the other hand, respondent’s representatives have argued that the appellant’s company i.e. Larsen & Toubro was invited to be present in the test, but they have not been present on that occasion. Additionally, it was argued by them that the test was conducted at the request of a third party i.e Brigade Enterprises which were conducted by the respondent public authority and that third party has requested the information to be kept confidential. As far as the norms of testing are concerned, it was submitted that the customer (Brigade Enterprises) have requested the testing to be done on norms specified by them.
6. Commission is of the view that the exemption under S. 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; is not applicable in the present case. It has not been explained how the disclosure of the sought for information would harm the competitive position of the third party. Respondent CPRI has conducted the test at the request of the third party, but being a supplier of the equipment for the said Test, appellant has the right to know the results of the test. Appellant has explained that he desires to know the norms applied for the test. As has been submitted, Commission has been apprised that different norms may have been applied by the CPRI during the testing, at the customer’s request.
7. Whether or not the appellant’s company was present in the test is not relevant in the present case and their absence does not debar them from obtaining the information which is otherwise disclosable. However the fact that the appellant was invited to be present for the test show that the respondent were not averse to disclosing information of the tests to the appellant. Commission is, therefore, in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant that the information sought in the RTI application is not one of commercial confidence and nor will it in any way harm the competitive position of the third party.
8. The exemption claimed by the respondent public authority is not legally tenable under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act and the said exemption cannot be invoked to deny the information.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with the direction to the respondent to provide the information as sought in the RTI application.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: H.G. Chandrasekhar v. Central Power Research Institute in CIC/LS/A/2013/001816/SS; CIC/LS/A/2013/001897/SS