Information relating to test conducted by CPRI for TNEB pertaining to “Type Testing” & “Strip Testing” on meters - CIC: The information pertains to the third party i.e. TNEB which is available to the CPRI in its fiduciary capacity; Exempt from disclosure
9 Jul, 2018O R D E R
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Power Research Institute (CPRI), Bangalore on three main points pertaining to “Type Testing” and “Strip Testing” on Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) supplied Contimeters brand test samples of High Quality Electromech. Meters (1-Phase & 3-Phase) by the CPRI, including, inter-alia
(i) whether the TNEB supplied sets of 2 Test Samples each of High Quality 1- Phase Electromech. Meters & 3-Phase High Quality Electromech Meters to CPRI, Bangalore for “Type Testing” as per BIS Standard IS-13010-2002, and
(ii) whether specific instructions were given in writing by the TNEB to the CPRI for not conducting initially, on Test Sample supplied by the TNEB to the CPRI for “Strip Testing” other Tests before proceeding with “Voltage Variation Test”, “Frequency Variation Test” & “Temperature Co-efficient Test” all falling under “Effect of Influence Quantities Test.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought was denied by the CPIO by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act as it is held by the CPRI in a fiduciary capacity and relates to personal information of a third party. The complainant stated that information has been denied without justifiable and reasonable reasons. The complainant requested the Commission to inquire into the matter, to direct the CPIO to provide true, complete and correct information as sought, to impose a penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 and also to recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO under Section 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. for denying the information deliberately, persistently and without reasonable cause.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri S.C. Kathuria and the respondent Shri M. Janardhana, Joint Director (MTD) and CPIO, CPRI, Bangalore attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The complainant submitted that he had supplied High Quality 1-Phase Electromech. Meters and High Quality 3-Phase Electromech Meters to the TNEB. However, his payment has been withheld on the basis of reports submitted by the CPRI. The complainant stated that the “Type Testing” and “Strip Testing” done by CPRI on the meters supplied by TNEB is not accurate because CPRI has not used proper BIS standards and protocols. He has, therefore, sought information relating to the “Type Testing” and “Strip Testing” from the respondent, however, the same has been denied to him by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that the TNEB had asked the CPRI to conduct “Type Testing” and “Strip Testing” on certain samples and had provided the details parameters on which the same were to be tested. This information was furnished by TNEB to CPRI in trust. The respondent further stated that they had conducted the tests on behalf of TNEB. Further, the test reports are for information and exclusive use by TNEB. Thus, the information sought by the complainant pertains to the third party i.e. TNEB which is held by the respondent in a fiduciary capacity. Hence, the complainant was informed vide letter dated 19.10.2016 that the disclosure of the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The complainant was also advised to obtain the information sought from the third party i.e. TNEB as they are its custodian. The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 19.12.2016 had upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the complainant is seeking information relating to tests conducted by CPRI for TNEB. The Commission, therefore, agrees with the CPIO that the information pertains to the third party i.e. TNEB which is available to the CPRI in its fiduciary capacity. Further, no larger public interest would be served by the disclosure of information. Hence, the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. In view of this, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: S.C. Kathuria vs. CPIO, Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore in Decision No. CIC/CPRIN/C/2017/114541, Dated 13.06.2018