Sanjay Kumar Baid vs National Automotive Training And Randd ... on 31 May, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sanjay Kumar Baid vs National Automotive Training And Randd ... on 31 May, 2021

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                    Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                     Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                     नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं     ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NATRI/A/2019/652684

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम

CPIO                                                    ... ितवादी /Respondent
International Centre for
Automotive Technology, Centre-
1, HSIIDC, IMT-Manesar,
Gurugram-122050

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 07-07-2019             FA    : 19-07-2019           SA       : 04-10-2019

 CPIO : 20-08-2019            FAO : 28-08-2019             Hearing : 24-05-2021

                                   ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), International Centre for Automotive Technology, Gurugram. The appellant seeking information regarding copy of Test reports and approvals issued by test agencies (ARAI , ICAT, NATRIP or any other approved) for maruti Suzuki ltd model CIAZ SMART HYBRID AT ALPHA based on which this model is being authorised to be registered at various RTO.

2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 19.07.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 28.08.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Page 1 of 3

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Tanu Singhal, CPIO, Shri Hemant Kumar and Shri Vikram Jit Saini, Advocate attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant submitted that till date no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 07.07.2019. The appellant further submitted that the information has been wrongly denied to him by the respondent under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the information sought by him is in larger public interest and the test reports are for the requirements of the NATRIP but not for the requirement of Maruti, therefore, the information cannot be treated as commercial information of third party.

5. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and submitted that the information sought by the appellant are proprietary confidential in nature and therefore these documents cannot be shared as per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that vide order dated 28.08.2019, the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO. On query from the Commission that as to whether the broad outcome of the test reports can be given to the RTI applicants. The respondent, Ms. Tanu Singhal stated that since she is not for technical background, she will not be able to answer the query of the Commission right away.

Interim Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant was aggrieved that the information which is of larger public interest has been wrongly denied to him under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act by the respondent public authority. The appellant contested that the car which has to be tested for the purpose of issuing certificate of road worthiness/test worthiness under the Motor Vehicles Act can always be disclosed in public domain. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is of commercial confidence and by disclosing the test reports will also leads to disclosing of other important parameters viz. technical issues and findings thereof which are mentioned in the test reports. However, the respondent is unable to answer the technical queries of the Commission that as to whether the broad outcome of the test reports can be disclosed in public domain.

7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to consult the concerned officer in their office and file written submissions before the Commission prior to the next date of hearing that as to whether the broad outcome of the test report can be disclosed in public domain and also give detailed reasons Page 2 of 3 that as to why Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is applicable in the present case, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

8. The Deputy Registrar is directed to fix hearing in the matter after 15 days. Fresh notice of hearing will be issued to both the parties.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.




                                                          नीरज कुमार गु ता
                                      Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज          ता)
                                                             सूचना आयु त)
                                   Information Commissioner (स         त

                                                  दनांक / Date       : 24-05-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित)


S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)



Addresses of the parties:
1.    CPIO
      International Centre for Automotive
      Technology, Centre-1, HSIIDC,
      IMT-Manesar, Gurugram-122050

2.    Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid




                                                                         Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission