Central Information Commission
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra vs Quality Council Of India on 9 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/QCIND/A/2024/602521
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Quality Council of India,
2nd Floor, Institution of Engineers
Building, 2, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025
Date of Decision : 08.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 06.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.01.2024
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 10.10.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 8
"Kindly provide documents of decision taken by NABL regarding closure of complaint number 58 of 2022 as intimated to complainant on 2nd March 2023. Copy of communication attached."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.11.2023 stating as under:
"It is hereby apprised that a complaint has been made by your good self against the Fare Labs Private Limited, M.G. Road, Gurgaon and the same was investigated as per the procedures defined by NABL and the outcome of the investigation was informed to you on [email protected] vide email dated 02nd March 2023. Information like letters issued by NABL to Fare labs and the documents collected during the investigation constitutes third party information which is confidential and held with NABL in fiduciary capacity. Hence, information sought cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the same has also been considered under non- disclosure document category and mentioned on QCI website under following link:
https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ck-
docs/Statement%20of%20the%20categories%20of%20docu ments%20held%20or%20under%20control.pdf"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.01.2024, held as under.
"This has reference to your First Appeal application led online dated 06th December, 2023 against reply provided by CPIO through RTI No. QCIND/R/E/23/00208 reply leer dated 06th November, 2023. On scrutiny of First Appeal and RTI application it has been observed that you have sought documents pertaining to decision taken by NABL regarding closure of complaint number 58 of 2022 as intimated to complainant on 02nd March 2023.
In this regard following is mentioned:
1. Complaint made by applicant against Fare Labs Private Limited, M.G. Road, Gurgaon was investigated as per the procedures denied by NABL and outcome was apprised to applicant through e-mail dated 02nd March, 2023.
2.Further, NABL as a part of investigation had sought response from the laboratory. NABL review committee has reviewed the lab's replies and expert comments for the same and noted that lab has taken action for the points raised and further expert has vetted the same. Based on the review of the lab's response and action taken and expert comments, Page 2 of 8 NABL complaints committee recommended for closure of the complaint.
3. However, information like leers issued by NABL to Fare labs and the documents collected during the investigation constitutes third party information which is confidential and held with NABL in fiduciary capacity.
4. Hence, information sought cannot be disclosed under Secon 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the same has also been considered under non-
disclosure document category and mentioned on QCI website under following link: Print RTI First Appeal Print Status Go Back hps://qcin.org/public/uploads/ckdocs/Statement%20of%20the%20categ ories%20of%20documents%20held%20or%20under%20control.pdf Accordingly, reply provided by CPIO is in order and I uphold the reply. In view of the above, the Appeal is disposed off."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Hari Prakash, Director/CPIO, Shri P.X. Xavier, Dy. Director/PIO, Shri Neeraj Verma, Dy. Director, APIO and Ms. Shilpa Khanna, Asst. Director/APIO, appeared in person.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 17.03.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1." Brief of RTI and First Appeal matter and reply provided by NABL/QCI:
i. Information sought through RTI application:
Kindly provide documents of decision taken by NABL regarding closure of complaint number 58 of 2022 as intimated to complainant on 02nd March 2023.
II. Reply to RTI application:Page 3 of 8
NABL/QCI had provided response to RTI application as per records available and as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005 stating the following facts:
Complaint has been made by your good self against the Fare Labs Private Limited, M.G. Road, Gurgaon and the same was investigated as per the procedures defined by NABL and the outcome of the investigation was informed to you on [email protected] vide email dated 02nd March 2023.
Information like letters issued by NABL to Fare labs and the documents collected during the investigation constitutes third party information which is confidential and held with NABL in fiduciary capacity.
Hence, information sought cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005, Further, the same has also been considered under non- disclosure document category and mentioned on QCI website under following link:
https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ck-
docs/Statement%20of%20the%20categories%20of%20documents%20he ld%2 0or%20under%20control.pdf III. Brief of First Appeal and reply to First Appeal-
Further, applicant filed First Appeal application online citing "refused access to information requested" and further referred to clauses of NABL document for dealing with complaints. Through detailed reply to First Appeal, following facts were mentioned:
a. Complaint made by applicant against Fare Labs Private Limited, M.G. Road, Gurgaon was investigated as per the procedures defined by NABL and outcome was apprised to applicant through e-mail dated 02nd March, 2023.
b. Further, NABL as a part of investigation had sought response from the laboratory. NABL review committee has reviewed the lab's replies and expert comments for the same and noted that lab has taken action for the points raised and further expert has vetted the same. Based on the review of the lab's response and action taken and expert comments, NABL complaints committee recommended for closure of the complaint.Page 4 of 8
c. However, information like letters issued by NABL to Fare labs and the documents collected during the investigation constitutes third party information which is confidential and held with NABL in fiduciary capacity.
d. Hence, information sought cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the same has also been considered under non- disclosure document category and mentioned on QCI website under following link:
https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ck-
docs/Statement%20of%20the%20categories%20of%20documents%20he ld %20or%20under%20control.pdf
2. Submissions of NABL/QCI highlighting facts of the case:
1. Brief about NABL and its role as an accreditation body-
• National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) is a voluntary accreditation body, with its accreditation system established in accordance with ISO/IEC 17011. "Conformity Assessment-Requirements for Accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies."
• NABL provides voluntary accreditation services to:
Testing & Calibration laboratories in accordance with ISO/ IEC 17025'General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories' Medical testing labourites in accordance with ISO 15189 Medical laboratories-Requirements for quality and competence.
Proficiency Testing Providers (PTP) in accordance with ISO/IEC 17043 "Conformity assessment - General requirements for proficiency testing" and Page 5 of 8 Reference material producers (RMP) in accordance with ISO 17034 "General requirements for the competence of reference material producers".
II. Action taken on complaint and response provided by NABL/QCI through RTI & First Appeal-
Complaint matter in question was duly investigated by NABL as per procedure defined and outcome of investigation was duly conveyed to the applicant through email dated 02.03.2023 and reply to RTI application and First Appeal.
It is humbly submitted that to maintain NABL's status as a signatory to the Asia Pacific Accreditation Cooperation (APAC) and International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRA), NABL is required to comply with the international standard ISO/IEC 17011. These standard mandates the confidentiality of information handled by accreditation bodies. Accordingly, documents such as letters issued by NABL to Fare Labs and records collected during the investigation are treated as third-party information and confidential in nature which are held by NABL in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, disclosure of such information was denied under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. In addition, these documents fall under the non-disclosure category, as mentioned on QCI website at the https://qcin.org/public/uploads/ck-following link:
docs/Statement%20of%20the%20categories%20of%20documents%20he ld%20 or%20under%20control.pdf However, in the aforesaid matter, appellant's complaint to M/s Fare Labs was duly acknowledged by the lab and lab has responded to the complainant via email dated 11.11.2022 at 05:38 PM (Annexure A), and also responded to the specific queries raised in the complaint on the same day at 06:12 PM (Annexure B).
iii. Misinterpretation of Clause No. 3.9 of NABL 132A document through First Appeal and Second Appeal, Clause No. 3 9 of NABL 132A document is being referred However, the said clause has been misinterpreted. It is respectfully submitted that NABL 132A (Procedure for Dealing with Complaints Related to NABL and its Activities/Services) outlines the procedure for handling complaints received from various sources regarding NABL and its activities/services. IV. Apprehension of applicant pertaining to non-disclosure of information- NABL/QCI has acted in a transparent manner and has Page 6 of 8 disclosed all relevant and permissible information to the applicant through appropriate responses under RTI and during the appeal process, strictly in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In view of the above facts, it is humbly requested to kindly consider submissions of QCI. However, any further directions from Hon'ble CIC shall be abided by Quality Council of India."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought information regarding decision taken by NABL regarding the closure of Complaint No. 58 of 2022.
The Commission observes that NABL, as an accreditation body, follows international standards (ISO/IEC 17011) that mandate confidentiality. The investigation details, including letters exchanged and documents collected, fall under third-party information and are held in a fiduciary capacity. The respondent has provided all permissible information and acted in accordance with the RTI Act. The detailed written submissions dated 17.03.2025 filed by the respondent CPIO are reproduced in the above paras. The appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. The submissions made by the respondent were taken on record.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that reply given by the respondent appears to be appropriate and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
The FAA Quality Council of India, 2nd Floor, Institution of Engineers Building, 2, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)