Central Information Commission
Prem Prakash Prajapati vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. on 5 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2016/000124/SB
Dated 03.04.2017
Complainant : Shri Prem Prakash Prajapati,
Industrial Area, Khurai Road, Bina,
Distt - Sagar (M.P)-470113.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
4th, 5th & 6th Floor, VUDA Bhawan,
L & T Circle, VIP Road, Karelibaug,
Vadodara, Gujarat-390 018.
Central Public Information Officer,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
Corporate Centre, Saudamini, Plot No.2,
Sector-29, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Date of Hearing : 03.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI application dated : 09.11.2015
CPIO' reply dated : 08.12.2015/05.01.2016
Complaint dated : 19.03.2016
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL), Bhopal seeking information on three points including (i) copy of the document mentioning the requirements for approval of testing laboratory to provide services to PGCI and (ii) as to whether it is mandatory for the laboratories to be accredited as per ISO/IEC-17025 by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for providing services to PGCIL projects.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that wrong information has been provided by CPIOs of PGCIL, CIC/YA/C/2016/000124/SB Page1 Gurgaon and PGCIL, Vadodara that NABL accreditation is not a must for laboratories to provide services to PGCIL projects. The complainant requested the Commission to take action against both the CPIOs under Section 18(e) of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Prem Prakash Prajapati and the respondent Shri Abhinav Verma, Dy. GM and CPIO, PGCIL attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Ajay Holani, CPIO, PGCIL was present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that incorrect and misleading information has been provided to him by the respondent. The complainant further submitted that information only with respect to point no. 1 of the RTI application was provided to him. However, no supporting documents as sought has been provided by the respondent. The complainant also stated that misleading information on point no. 3 of the RTI application has been provided as he was informed that NABL Accreditation is not required for the testing laboratories whereas as per the guidelines for approval of the Third- Party Labs (TPL), NABL Accreditation is required.
5. The respondent submitted that point wise information as per available records has been provided to the complainant vide letters dated 08.12.2015, 05.01.2016. The respondent in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application submitted that the document sought for by the complainant was interpreted as an internal note which was provided to him vide letter dated 20.08.2015. With respect to point no. 3 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that labs can be NABL Accredited Lab/ Government Lab / Government College / Government Polytechnic as per Guideline no. 3(c) for Approval of TPL. Hence, the appellant was informed that NABL Accreditation is not a must for laboratories to provide services to the PGCIL projects. The respondent further stated that the complainant was further informed vide letter dated 31.07.2015 that in addition to already accepted labs/institutions working with PGCIL, TPL Accredited by any agency which CIC/YA/C/2016/000124/SB Page2 operates in accordance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011 having full membership and MRA of ILAC/APLAC are acceptable to provide testing/ calibration services to PGCIL. Hence, no further information remains to be provided to the complainant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that as per guidelines for approval of TPLs for testing of construction materials for transmission lines/ sub- stations, the TPL shall be a NABL Accredited Lab/ Government Lab / Government College / Government Polytechnic. Hence, the information provided to the complainant by the respondent is not incorrect. The Commission further observes that since correct information had been provided to the complainant, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
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 Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/YA/C/2016/000124/SB Page3