Central Information Commission
Sunil Goel vs Quality Council Of India on 23 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/QCIND/A/2023/103253
Sunil Goel ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Quality Council of India
2nd Floor, Institution of Engineers Building
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/08/2023
Date of Decision : 18/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2022
CPIO replied on : 11/11/2022
First appeal filed on : 18/11/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 14/12/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/01/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2022 seeking the following information:-
" Ref: "CAUTION NOTICE AGAINST FALSE CLAIM OF NABL ACCREDITATION II" posted by NABL on it's website vide link https://nabi-india.org/wp/-1
content/uploads/2022/10/Notice.pdf regarding false claims of NABL Accreditation for testing of Nitrogen Injection Fire protection system (NIFPS) (Copy attached- 1 page) Dear Sir, This has reference to above caption subject matter and references the contents of which are integral part of present RTI application and are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
Considering this massive public Interest following information art required under Right to Information Act 2005:
1. Please provide the copy of all documents which necessitated for NABL to post 'CAUTION NOTICE AGAINST FALSE CLAIM OF NABL ACCREDITATION II" on its website vide link "https://nabl-10/Notice.Pdf
2. Please provide the name and other details of entity/persons which has claimed falsely regarding NA131. Accreditation for testing of Nitrogen Injection Fire protection system (NIFPS)
3. Please provide the documents containing action taken by NABL against the person /Entity, which has falsely claimed regarding NABL Accreditation for testing of Nitrogen Injection Fire protection system (NIFPS) such as:
a. Blacklisting, b. legal actions, etc. NABL has been religiously blacklisting many laboratories/ entities in this regard.
4. Please provide the documents containing action taken by NABL to inform public utilities who are using NIFPS to protect transformers and are being misled by the same person/ entity/ laboratory who misled NAER./ QCI.
a. Please refer an Illustrative technical tender document of Public utility namely UIVNL Dehradun Genco) which is mentioning "NABL accredited" as technical criteria in tender for NIFPS procurement.
In the Interest of larger public Interest, It is the mandatory duty of NM/ QCI:
1. To immediately inform all power and public utilities which are being misled in such blunt manner that they are including NABL's name for NIFPS procurement In their technical tender document a. This is urgent also because of the fact that NIFPS is meant for safety of transformers from fire and blast which can lead to loss of priceless human lives In addition to loss of billions of rupees of public funds.2
2. To immediately black-list such entities which are falsely claiming your accreditation for wrongful gains;
a. I fail to understand the reasons why NABL/ QCI officers are hesitant of blacklisting entity/ laboratory falsely claiming NABL accreditation for their illegal personal advantage to risk human byes and massive public money despite the fact that NABL has a clear practice of blacklisting entitles even for smaller issues as is apparent from NAK's website.
Please note that above Information is required point wise and reply should bath English only. "
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.11.2022 stating as under:-
" Please refer to your RTI application dated 19" October, 2022 received in QCI office dated 17th October, 2022 seeking information under RTI Act. 2005. The point wise response to your RTI is appended below-
Reply -1: Information sought through point no. 1 is confidential in nature and submitted to NABL in fiduciary capacity. Hence, information sought cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply- 2: Information is not available in the file. Reply-3: Information is not available in the file
Reply-4. Information is not available in the file. Further; the part after point no 4 in the RTI is suggestion to take some actions and no information has been sought, As per Section 2(f) of RI! Act. 2005, information means material in any form which can be accessed by a public authority."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2022. FAA's order, dated 14.12.2022 is as under:-
"Further, through your First Appeal you have apprehension on the response provided to you through RTI application No. QCIND/R/P/22/00041.3
General information which was available with CP10.and came under the purview of RTI Act, 2005 was provided.
Also, NABL being constituent board of QCI is not separate public authority. Hence, CPIO, QCI has provided information after obtaining the same from NABL. In view of the above the concern raised by you that information should have been collected through relevant officers U/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 within 05 days is not applicable. Accordingly, your Appeal is disposed of."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Hari Prakash, Director & CPIO alongwith P X Xavier, Director; Shilpa Khanna and Neeraj Verma.
The Appellant submitted at great length on the following lines as that of his written contentions:
"1. That NABL/QCI is a public authority and it's officers are drawing salary from public ex-chequer and they can't act a puppet in the hands of a private entity which is using in accreditation to mislead government utilities and to win tenders on the basis of forge fabricated certificates allegedly supported by NABIL/OCL
2. Being a public entity, NABL QCI is duty bound to provide name and details of entity which has misused the name and accreditation of NABL OCI merely for using the public funds in massive public tenders and for which QCI NABL had to place Caution Notice on it's website also.
3. If the grounds of appeal are read holistically, which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and which are to be read as integral part of present advance submission, it will be apparently clear that PIO and FAA are trying all possible ways to protect a private entity/ person/ organization which has played with the accreditation/ goodwill of the NABL/QCI bluntly.
Point-wise response on misleading advance submission from CPIO:
41. It is vehemently denied that RTI applicant was under any assumption. Rather, NABL officer is misleading the hon'ble CIC to hide it's unlawful act of protecting a private entity/person/ organization which has played with the accreditation/ goodwill of the NABL/QCI bluntly and denying the public information to RTI applicant which can highlight the unlawful acts of NABL/ QCI officers in public. If the information if provided, such unlawful persons/ entity which NABL/ QCI is intending to protect, can be brought to deserving punishment as per law of land but for reasons best known to NABL QCI officers, they are trying to hide these essential public information from public.
2. Complainant and RTI applicant are the same person and this is part of visible records. Thereby, exemption u/s. 8(i)(g) of RTI Act, 2005, which CPIO unlawfully claimed, don't exist at all under any circumstances whatsoever. In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduce my submissions in second appeal which clearly exposes the unlawful excuses from CPIO:
'On hand Ld. FAA took unlawful & unavailable exemption us. 8(1)(g) apprehending danger to the life of it's officers which is bluntly false excuse for following illustrative reasons:
a. That in response to RTI application. PIO himself didn't take this excuse and the FAA became the advocate for PIO and the concerned officer just to save them from their duties under RTI Act, 2005;
b. That FAA is not allowed to take additional excuses on behalf of the PIO c. That Without prejudice to above, on one hand FAA is saying that there is no False claim by anyone and on the other hand FAA is unlawfully advocating abou danger of life. These are two completely contradictory and illegal stands of FA which are unacceptable and completely false;
d. That firstly the concerned officer and then both PIO & FAA are unlawfully safeguard the culprit who has misused NAB's accredential and are not bothered about their duties to punish the culprit This situation is very alarming for a public entity where it's officers are only concerned about saving wrong-doers and are not concerned about their duties towards public This situation needs to be addressed in larger public interest U/s. 8(2) of RTI Act, 2005 and also makes both PIO & FAA liable for punishments U/s, 20 of RTI Act, 2005.
Rather than serving public interest both PIO & FAA are engaged in saving private wrong-doer which forced NABL to post a warning at it's website:5
e. That publication of culprit who misused accredential of NABL is in larger public interest;
f. It is evident that both the PIO and FAA are illegally manufacturing ways and means to protect a wrong-doer private party even at the cost of goodwill of NABL QCI:
Exemption U/s. 8(1)(G) is not available at all in any circumstance in the instant case as there is no such danger either apprehended by CPIO or anyone-else. In the instant case, complainant is the RTI applicant himself who made NABL QCI realize about fraud played with it's accredential and after marathon efforts NABL QCI posted warning in this regard on it's website. Thereby, it is mandatory legal and moral duty of NABL QCI to keep the Complainant informed about the whereabouts and details of culprit and not to protect it. NABL shouldn't work under any favor or fear but firstly NABL suggested to have worked for fear as it allowed it's goodwill to be compromised and now it is falsely apprehending fear. Both are not allowed in the working culture of a public entity which is meant to work for interest of public.'
3. The complainant and RTI Applicant complies with all the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 to ask the information and the information sought under RTI application don't suffer any of the exemptions in the said RTI Act. RTI applicant, who was the complainant also, brought to the attention of NABL/QCI certain unlawful actions against the accreditation/ goodwill of NABL QCI which even was appreciated in the beginning by NABL QCI but for reasons best known to it's officers, it's officers seems to have tied their hands with that private entity/ organization which has abused the accreditation of NABL/ QCI and because of which NABL/QCI had to place Caution Notice on it's website also. Claims of NABL/QCI regarding their diligence in compliance with process are under massive suspicion considering their unlawful stand in support of private entity/ organization which has abused the accreditation of NABL QCI to mislead public utilities to unlawfully procure massive public tenders and for which NABL/QCI has started levying unlawful allegations even against the complainant/ RTI applicant.
4. Claim of NABL QCI is false in toto considering the wild stand taken by it against the RTI applicant by which it has started levying defamatory allegations against the RTI applicant. If the records of complaint and RTI application proceedings are holistically perused, it would be quite clear that NABL is working under pressure of unlawful favours of of private entity/ organization which has abused the 6 accreditation of NABL QCI to mislead public utilities to unlawfully procure massive public tenders. There is no "Fiduciary information" which are required to be shared or posted. RTI applicant merely asked public information which NABL QCI is required to provide to RTI applicant regarding a private entity/ organization which has abused the accreditation of NABL QCI to mislead public utilities to unlawfully procure massive public tenders.
5. Complainant is not barred from filing RTI application and when NABL/QCI is not ready to protect it's goodwill which is built at public money and is ready to protect a private entity/ organization which has abused the accreditation of NABL QCI to mislead public utilities to unlawfully procure massive public tenders, the Complainant-cum-RTI applicant had to step in to protect the public money against criminal conspiracy done between a public undertaking and a private entity which is causing massive dent to public funds and misleading of many public utilities and public safety.
a. Previously, QCI/ NABL CPIO wanted to protect the life of complainant/ RTI applicant under wayward excuse of section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 and when such unlawful stand got exposed, now it is trying to establish a completely contradictory stand of "Self-interest". What kind of "Self-interest" can a person like RTI applicant can have in this entire complaint or RTI applicant? It is purely to save the goodwill of QCI/ NABL and tenders of public utilities regarding which QCI/ NABL wants to remain bluntly silent and wants to protect a private entity/ organization which has abused the accreditation of NABL QCI to mislead public utilities to unlawfully procure massive public tenders."
The CPIO reiterated the written submissions filed on 31.07.2023 stating as under:
"1. NABL follows due process and at any time may post announcement in the interest of laboratories, users of laboratories and regulators (any stakeholders) etc. The matter in question i.e. Caution Notice against false claim of NABL accreditation being highlighted by applicant through RTI is based on his assumption that particular announcement has been made based on the inputs from RTI applicant/ complaint received. Such notices/ announcements have been posted on the NABL website in the past and will continue as and when required.
2. Through First Appellate Authority order vide No. QCIND/A/P/22/00009 dated 14th December, 2022, applicant was clearly apprised of the facts while also mentioning the related sections of RTI Act, 2005 for not being able to disclose the details of complainants/ officials through either RTI Reply/ First Appeal reply.7
3. Further, regarding purview of NABL it is hereby apprised:
a. NABL grants voluntary accreditation to laboratories based on their applied scope to test a product / material as per specified test methods. List of such laboratories is given in NABL website.
b. Also, the purview of NABL is restricted up to the laboratory activities. Accessing information about the customers of laboratories is not under the purview of NABL.
c. It also has a mechanism of monitoring the performance of laboratories through various means which builds trust in customers about the results generated by the laboratory.
d. There is a procedure to initiate adverse action against accredited laboratories which are not found to abide by the terms and conditions of maintaining NABL accreditation or are indulging in practices that bring NABL to disrepute.
4. It is submitted that NABL does not hide or protect any entity. Misconstruing of information by the RTI applicant seems to be deliberate so as to create pressure on Public authority/ NABL and post fiduciary information on website. The organizations dealing with the so-called entities (which can endanger public safety) may take suitable action. However, the said matter does not fall within purview of NABL/ QCI.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is himself filing RTI and has requested for documents which he himself claims to have submitted to NABL is an act of self-interest rather than public interest.
6. Regarding applicant's contention of not being heard by first appellate authority, it is hereby apprised that applicant had in the past filed another RTI Application/ First Appeal in similar matter and had sought personal hearing through First Appeal vide No. QCIND/A/P/22/00005 dated 15th January, 2022. Taking into consideration the request of applicant, First Appellate Authority, QCI allowed personal hearing to applicant on 24th February, 2022."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that while the Appellant made a strong case narrating the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application, the fact remains that the RTI Application in a strict sense does not seek for specific information. The Appellant having sought for "all documents" at point no.1 does not provide for any relief to be ordered in the matter as it may entail disclosure of such records which was not originated from the Appellant's end and the mere insistence of the Appellant that he was the 8 complainant in the matter based on whose inputs the averred caution notice was posted does not negate the apprehensions of the CPIO vis-à-vis the applicability of the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. Similarly, the information sought for at points 2 & 3 is also speculative in nature and not specific, for providing such information, the CPIO is required to interpret and deduce information.
The Commission is not in a position to appreciate the contentions of the Appellant as he appears to be harping on his right to seek all of the documents related to posting of the averred caution notice based on his understanding that the notice was posted as a result of solely his complaint. The garb of public interest does not absolve the RTI Applicants from complying with the mandate of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to 9 such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about 10 information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing observations, no relief can be ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 11 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 12