CIC: Testing procedure followed for testing of certain parameters of a Polymer (Flocculant) procured by Security Paper Mill through public tender is a matter of public interest; Not a core activity and does not affect security interests in any manner

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.01.2022 seeking information through 12 points in the following manner:

(i) “Specify the current, detailed test procedures followed by the SPM QC lab for testing against the parameters of Density, Brookfield viscosity and % NVS in respect of the product “Polymer (Flocculant)”. Kindly provide the actual and complete test procedures, as opposed to just providing information about the applicable standards.

(ii) Specify the process followed for formulation and approval of the testing procedures referred to at paragraph (1) above and particularly, elaborate on the following in detail:

a. Provide a copy of the relevant IS, ISO and TAAPI standards on the basis of which the said testing procedures have been derived for each parameter – Density, Brookfield viscosity and % NVS.

b. Provide a copy of any relevant and reputed scientific literature, widely- followed industrial norms or standards, other than IS, ISO and TAAPI, on the basis of which the said testing procedures were formulated for each parameter – Density, Brookfield viscosity and % NVS.

c. Whether the testing procedures were formulated in-house by officials of SPM or were derived from some other source? If formulated in-house, please mention the name and designation of the relevant officials / authorities by whom the said procedures were formulated, with brief overview of their qualifications and experience; and

d. Whether the testing procedures were put through any comprehensive process of verification or review by senior technical officials / authorities of SPM prior to approval? If yes, specify the concerned officials / authorities involved (name and designation), both in review and approval process.

(iii) Specify the process / methodology followed by SPM for drawing up the specifications / material description mentioned at Paragraph 3(i) of the Purchase Order No. 4500019792 dated 05.01.2022 placed on Amoog Chemicals for supply of 8,400 kgs of Polyelectrolyte (Flocculant). Please provide complete details.

(iv) Please specify the intended end use / application / process for which Polymer (Flocculant) is being purchased by SPM from Amoog Chemicals under SPM’s Purchase Order No. 4500019792 dated 05.01.2022. Also specify, with specific reference to the end use / application / process for which the Polymer (Flocculant) is being purchased, what will be the impact of the presence of higher percentage of NVS (than the level prescribed at Paragraph 3(i) of the Purchase Order) in the supplied Polymer (Flocculant) on the said end use / application / process.

(v) Please specify the sampling methodology followed by SPM QC for drawing of bulk sample for testing from the consignment of Polymer (Flocculant) supplied by Amoog Chemicals (3,900 kgs) under their Invoice No. 14 dated 24.12.2021 and SPM’s Purchase Order No. 4500019792 dated 05.01.2022.” etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.02.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“1. Information on point no. 1-

Quality Control Laboratory of Security Paper Mill Narmadapuram is a NABL Accredited Lab (National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratory) and we have made our in-house Standard Operating Procedures in accordance with IS, ISO, TAPPI and ASTM Standards (Approved by the Competent Authority of SPM) for testing of each parameter of all incoming raw materials, chemicals, consumables and packing materials respectively. Specifically, you may refer the following standards for testing of parameters of Density, Brookfield Viscosity and Non-Volatile Solid in respect of Polymer (Flocculant).

For Density: ISO 1183; ASTM-0792

For Brookfield Viscosity: TAPPI T-648; ASTM-0789

For % NVS: ISO 3251:2019; ASTM-D2834/95

The actual and complete procedures can't be shared with or provided to others because it is our internal confidential documents and being a Security Organization (A unit of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, wholly owned and under the administrative control of Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) and being a NABL Accredited Lab we have to maintain the confidentiality of the organization.

2. Information on point no. 2-

(a) All relevant standards on basis of which In-house Standard Operating Procedures have been derived for testing of each parameter of Density, Brookfield Viscosity and Non- Volatile Solid have been purchased from the standard's organizations; hence we can't provide copy of the same.

(b) You may refer the following standards other than IS, ISO and TAPPI on the basis of which the said testing procedures are made:

For Density: ASTM-0792

For Brookfield Viscosity: ASTM-D789

For % NVS: ASTM-D2834/95

(c) Standard Operating Procedures have been formulated in accordance with Standards Test Methods by the competent person/authority having rich qualification and experience in the field of Fibrous & Non-Fibrous Testing.

(d) Yes, the said testing procedures were put through the process of verification, review and approval by the senior technical official/ authority. Standard Operating Procedures were finalized after checking, verifying & reviewing by the senior official/authority and approved from the Competent Authority of SPM. We can't disclose the details (name and designation) of the concerned officials/authority involved in review and approval process due to security organization (A unit of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, wholly owned and under the administrative control of Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) and being a NABL Accredited Lab we have to maintain the confidentiality of the organization.

3. Information on point no. 3-

Nomination of committee member approved by Competent Authority for freezing of technical specification of materials.

4. Information on point no. 4

Polymer (Flocculant) is used for fibre recovery system in Paper Machine.

5. Information on point no. 5-

SPM QC Lab have made their own In-house Standard Operating Procedures in accordance with IS, ISO, TAPPI and ASTM Standards (Approved by the Competent Authority of SPM) for sampling methodology for all incoming raw materials, chemicals, consumables and packing materials respectively. The said sampling methodology/procedures for any materials or material specially mentioned in reference question (The said consignment of Polymer (Flocculant)) can't be shared with or provided to others because it is our internal confidential documents and being a Security Organization (A unit of Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited, wholly owned and under the administrative control of Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) and being a NABL Accredited Lab, we have to maintain the confidentiality of the organization.”.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.03.2022. The FAA vide order dated 30.03.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.06.2022.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Sanjay Bhawsar, Manager & CPIO along with Vyom Tripathi, Legal Officer attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant. Upon a query from the Commission regarding the rationale behind stating under point no.1 of their reply that “The actual and complete procedures can't be shared with or provided to others because it is our internal confidential documents” without even invoking any exemption clause of the RTI Act, the Respondent merely stated that the SOP followed for testing raw materials is approved by the competent authority. Considering the absurdity of the submission made by the Respondent, repeated opportunities were afforded to justify the denial under any of the exemptions envisaged under Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act, yet, the Respondent continued to harp on the ‘approval of competent authority’ and eventually quoted Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; in an unconvincing manner.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is largely not conforming to 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; of the RTI Act as the queries are in the form of seeking answers to clarification-based questions, requiring deductions to be provided by the CPIO. For the said reason, the Commission does not find any infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO on most of the points raised in the RTI Application except on point no.1, where the test procedure has been denied without even citing any exemption clause of the RTI Act. Moreover, the CPIO has also failed to justify the denial of the information during the hearing. Further, in this regard, the Commission also finds substance in the argument placed on record by the Appellant in the grounds of the second appeal that- “The CPIO has unjustly refused access to the information sought without any basis. The information sought does not fall under any of the exempted categories of information specified under Section 8 of the RTI Act. What has been sought by this Applicant is merely the testing procedure followed by Security Paper Mill Quality Control Lab (SPM QC) for testing of certain parameters in respect of a product, Polymer (Flocculant), which is procured by Security Paper Mill (SPM) through public tender. SPM accepts or rejects the product supplied by vendors on the basis of testing carried out using these procedures and these testing procedures are therefore a matter of public interest, since vendors’ interests will be adversely affected if material is rejected on the basis of inappropriate / non- standard testing procedures. The information sought does not pertain to any of the core activities of SPM and does not affect security interests in any manner. This information must therefore be provided and cannot be withheld on the ground of confidentiality.

8. Having observed as above, the Commission now directs the CPIO to revisit the reply provided on point no. 1 of the RTI Application with respect to the testing procedure. Upon revisiting, the CPIO shall provide the available and relevant information to the Appellant after redacting, if required, only such categories of information which fall under the stipulated exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act, after duly specifying the applicable exemption and justifying the denial thereof. The said revised reply of the CPIO incorporating the information as directed shall be provided to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mahasweta M. v. Security Paper Mill, M.P., CIC/SPMIL/A/2022/635766; Date of Decision: 15.03.2024