Punjab info panel reserves details sought under RTI

Jasneet Bindra: Sat Oct 16 2010:Chandigarh

Turning down the plea of a Pathankot resident for information on details of discrepancies noticed by the Deputy Director of Factories, Ludhiana, during inspections, the Punjab State Information Commission ruled that data pertaining to individual institutes need not be brought out in the public domain.

Yogesh Mahajan had sought information under the RTI Act regarding the list of norms followed while inspecting industries, crushers, brick kilns and other institutions; details of inspections made and discrepancies noticed. He also wanted details on child workers in these factories.

“Information can only be given with approval of the factory owners. Details pertaining to deficiency of facilities, discrepancies noticed and remedial measures suggested are inputs of individual factories and not in the larger public interest,” said State Information Commissioner Lt Gen P K Grover.

The respondent stated that inspections were conducted according to the norms laid down in the Factories Act, 1948, and Punjab Factories Rules, 1952, and the anomalies pointed out were rectified. However, more information was denied on the ground that it pertained to third parties.

Lt Gen Grover said according to the Factories Act, no inspector would, while in service or after, disclose any information related to any manufacturing or commercial business or any working process which may come to his knowledge in the course of his official duties.

He said if an inspector contravenes the law, he could be punished for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to Rs 1,000. Besides, every inspector would have to treat as confidential the source of any complaint brought to his notice, he added.

In this case, the respondent has submitted copies of letters from a number of factory owners, who have requested that the information be denied. The applicant, on the other hand, has not specifically justified larger public interest involved in obtaining the information.

The commission said that only detail of dates of inspections and names of institution could be given.