Information as to whether the licence holders were having in-house testing facilities as per certain clauses of IS 15351:2015 was denied by BIS u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act - CIC: The disclosure of only the number of licensees would not be exempt

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bureau Of Indian Standards, New Delhi seeking following information:-

“1. No. of licencees as per IS: 15351 having the following in house testing facilities:

a) As per Cl. No.3.1 HDPE

b) As per Cl. No.3.2 HDPE Fabric

c) As per Cl. No. 5.1 Lamination.

2. Arrangements if any made by licencees not having any or all inhouse testing facilities.

3. Whether licence can be granted if any one of the above in-house testing facilities is not available with the manufacturer/licencee.”

2. The CPIO responded on 26-10-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 25-11-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 19-02- 2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Sunil Ramanlal Vora attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. V K Rawat, Scientist ‘C’ participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the sought for information as to whether the licence holders were having in-house testing facilities as per certain clauses of IS 15351:2015.

5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is exempted u/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; 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; of the RTI Act, 2005, as its disclosure would impede their competitive position. In this regard, they have already given a reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 26-10-2018. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.

Decision:

6. This Commission observes that the disclosure of only the number of licensees would in no way attract the exemption u/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; 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the respondent is directed to provide the information on point no. 1 to the appellant, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. However, the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification to the appellant on rest of the points.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Information Commissioner

Citation: Sunil Ramanlal Vora v. Bureau of Indian Standards in /Second Appeal No. CIC/BISHQ/A/2019/603760, Date: 31-08-2020