Central Information Commission
Gayatri Devi vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 30 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/125793 +
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/130329+
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/149046
Gayatri Devi ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, Mark. Div., UP State
Office 1, RTI Cell, Indian Oil
Bhavan, TC 39-V Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh-226010 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28/11/2022
Date of Decision : 28/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The above mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application(s) filed on : 31/05/2021, 24/05/2021 & 22/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 22/06/2021, 05/07/2021 & 10/09/2021
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
(s)
2nd Appeal/Complaint(s) dated : 26/06/2021, 22/07/2021 & 06/11/2021.
1
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/125793
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2021 seeking information pertaining to IOCL and Govt of India (Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas) Instructions, Circulars, rules & Regulations, including inter alia;
1. "What is the criteria of measuring the land from mid of the PWD Road to the boundary line of the land for RO Dealership on State Highway 75 Domariaganj Dhebaruwa Marg and Bansi to Itwa Marg District SIDDHARTH NAGAR Uttar Pradesh as per IOCL instructions.
2. According to IOCL instructions, what is the periodicity to declare and to inform successful candidate through mail after last date of submission of the Application online for RO Dealership as per advertisement.
3. According to IOCL instructions, what is the periodicity to inform to declared successful candidate for Land Evaluation by the LEC after submission of all Documents as advised by the company through email.
4. According to IOCL instructions, what is the actual periodicity to provide the signed copy of LEC report to candidate, in which applicant has made the signed along with the signature of the LEC members after visiting the site by LEC.
5. According to IOCL instructions, what is the periodicity to inform through email to successful candidate If the offered land is not meeting the laid down criteria observed by LEC members during visit the site of offer land in the advertised location.
6. According to IOCL instructions, If the offered land is not meeting the laid down criteria observed by LEC during visit the site, then what is the periodicity to inform through email to successful candidate about the rejection of the application and candidature of the applicant.
7. According to IOCL instructions, in case land is not found suitable by LEC, then what is the periodicity of intimation through SMS / e-mail to the candidate regarding rejection of the offered land and subsequent consideration of candidature along with group 3 applicant to all group holders.
8. Whether there is any provision or any stage to send the intimation regarding Field Verification of Credentials to the selected candidate in advance by SMS / e-mail as per IOCL instructions.2
9. According to IOCL instructions, ls there any provision to provide the LEC report to the successful candidate after the visit of the site by LEC members, in case the land is found suitable / not suitable, whatever the case may be."
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 22.06.2021 stating as under:-
Point No. 1:- As per PWD guidelines, ROW is 75 feet from the center of the road on SH-75. In this regard, you are requested to kindly peruse the guidelines of the PWD.
Point No. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8:- In this regard, we would like to inform you that the all details related to submission of application and selection process of the candidate for RO dealership is readily available in the Brochure which is available in the website: www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in. You are requested to kindly peruse the same.
Point No. 4:- There is no provision to provide the signed copy of the LEC report to the candidate as it is prepared in the presence of the candidate and is also signed and accepted by the candidate upon preparation.
Point No. 9:- Please refer our answer to query no. 2 and 4."
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/130329 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2021 seeking the following information:3
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 05.07.2021 stating as under:-4
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/149046 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2021 seeking the following information:
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 10.09.2021 stating as under:-5
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed the instant set of complaint(s) with the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Not present.
The Commission remarked at the outset that a similar bunch of Second Appeal(s) & Complaint(s) of another Appellant/Complainant i.e. Son of the Complainant (Adarsh Mani) were already heard and decided by this bench on 23.11.2022 vide cases no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/119214 and others with the following observations
-6
"xxx That the RTI applicant/appellant has sought information with respect to allotment of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership at location - Between KM stone No. 24 to 28 on SW75, Dist. Siddharthnagar.
3. The aforesaid location was advertised on 25.11.2018 under SC category for allotment of RO dealership at Sr. No. 30 in Siddharthnagar District The applications for the same were invited through online basis on the website: www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in and last date for the application was 25.12.2018.
4. A brochure for applicants was also published named "Selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets" dated 24.11.2018 in Hindi and English in which all the terms and conditions regarding filling up of forms and other criteria was mentioned. The same is uploaded in the above website which is publicly available and can be accessed by any individual.
5. That there were three categories of the applicants who applied for the dealership as in Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3. These groups are divided as per availability of land with the applicants for setting up of petrol pump. This criterion was clearly mentioned in the above brochure. Selection of the applicants is done by conducting draw of lots. As per guidelines, draw of lots is first conducted among the Group-1 applicants. If there is no applicant or no one is selected in Group-1 category, then the draw of lots is conducted among the Group-2 applicants. The same process is followed for the Group-3 applicants.
6. Total 4 applicants (Group1=0, Group-2=0 & Group-3=4) applied for Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership at location - Between KM stone No. 24 to 28 on SH-75, Dist. Siddharthnagar. It is mentioned here that the RTI applicant/appellant is one of the applicant for this location and was applied in group 3 category and an opportunity for offer of land has been given to the applicant as per policy and later moved to group 1. Sh. Adarsh Mani has applied for Gata No. 365 ka for which LEC was done on 03.022020 by a two member committee. At the time of LEC (Land Evaluation Committee), the sand offered by the applicant Sit Adarsh Mani was rejected as the land was found only 19 meters as against the requirement of 35 meters as per advertisement. As per Dealer Selection Guidelines, the applicant who has applied in groupw3 category may be given only one change for applying for land and if the land is found unsuitable shall be made ineligible. Based on the above, Sh. Adarsh Mani has been declared ineligible.7
In this regard, he had also requested for personal hearing with officers of the Corporation at State Office level. Based on his request there was a VC conducted on 20.08.2021 and recorded with Sh. Adarsh Mani and his father Sh. Chandra Mani. During the VC, it was categorically explained to the applicant that as per Policy he has been given one opportunity for offering land, as he had applied under Group-III having his land unsuitable he was made ineligible. However, during the entire VC the applicant kept on insisting that his case may be considered on "stand alone" basis for granting another opportunity. Presently, no eligible candidate for selection for this location.
That the RTI applicant was also one of the applicants for the Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) for another location in Within 4 KMs from Parsa Railway Crossing on Nimign730„ District Siddharth Nagar advertised under SC category at Sr. No. 442. Total 12 applicants (Group=3, Group2=4 Group3=5) applied in which he was applied in group-3 category.
9. The 1st draw of Lots for the above location was held on 17.06.2019 at 14:00 hours. The intimation letter for the same was sent on 07,06.2019. The applicant Sh. Ashish Bharti was selected during draw of Lots. The letter for submission of ISD/Documents and Letter of selection was sent on 19.06.2019.
10. Sh. Ashish Bharti had submitted documents and scrutiny for application was completed wherein he was found eligible for land evaluation. The LEC was done on 20.09.2019. The LEC observed intersections on the road at 50 mtr, 100 mtr and 270 mtrs. Hence, as per the DSG issued vide mail dated 19.08.2019 letter for seeking clarification from NHAI was sent on 31.10.2019. The last date for submission of NHAI clarification was 07.02.2020. Failing which the application was sent to Group-III on 16.03.2020. As the applicant was not able to provide the required clarification he was sent to Group-3.
11. After Sh. Ashish Bharti was sent to Group-3, draw of lots was done on 03.03.2021 wherein other candidate Sh. Arunesh Gupta was selected. Sh. Arunesh Gupta has not submitted ISD/Documents thus his selection was cancelled due to non submission of ISD/Documents.
12. After rejection of Sh. Arunesh Gupta there was only one applicant Sh. Mahendra Pal remaining in Group-I who had been sent the letter for selection and letter for submission of ISD and Documents. Sh. Mahendra Pal had not submitted ISD/Documents within prescribed period thus his selection was also cancelled.
813. Thereafter, total 04 applicants remains in Group-2. Draw of lots for the location was held on 14.12.2021 wherein Pratibha Arya was selected. Selection of Pratibha Arya was cancelled due to non submission of ISD/documents.
14 Thereafter, total 03 applicants remains in Group-2. Draw of lots for the location was held on 04.05.2022 wherein Sh. Shyamu was selected. Sh. Shyamu has submitted ISD and documents. Scrutiny of the applicant was completed wherein he was found eligible for land evaluation. The LEC was done on 12.09.2022 wherein land offered by Sh. Shyamu has not been found suitable. So selection of Sh. Shyamu was cancelled. Thereafter, total 02 applicants remains in Group-2. Draw of lots of above location has been now scheduled on 25.11.2022 and the above RTI applicant Shri Adarsh Mani is stilt in Group-3 category for finalization of this locationn
15. It is most important to mention here that the RTI applicant is a regular information seeker and the same address persons (Sh. Adarsh Mani, his father Sh. Chandra Mani and Smt. Gayatri Devi have filed total 29 RTI applications since January 2019. Out of 29 RTI applications 21 RTI applications filed by Smt. Gayatri Devi. applications filed by Sh. Adarsh Mani 2 RTI his father Sh. Chandra Mani and total 6 RTI applications flied by 16. In view of the above, it is noticed that the applicants are trying to fish out the information by filing multiple RTI applications one after another and seeking supplementary information after receiving reply of one RTI. 17. By filing new RTI applications, the applicants are trying to settle their grievance regarding not being selected for the above said locations. By filing repeated RTIs applications, the applicants are trying our Corporation and its officials to divert their resources.
18. In the judgemert of Aditya Bandhopadhyay a Versus CBSE Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned such act of repeated RTIs on art of RTI applicant.
19. In view of the above, it is informed to RTI applicant in many our replies that in future, the corporation will not be able to provide any information to you with regard to before mentioned locations and their selection process......."
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking information and in fact, it is about the Complainant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to cancellation 9 of allotment of petrol pump in his favour based on the LEC report of IOCL and also clarifications in this regard from the Respondent's organization.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the queries raised in the instant RTI Application(s) and the CPIO has further supplemented the original reply informing about the factual position in the matter through his latest written submission.
The Complainant/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.
In this regard, his 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] where in 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 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, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a 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."10
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 action is warranted in the matter.
However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the Commission hereby advises the Complainant/Appellant to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
Decision In furtherance of hearing proceedings and considering the rationale of applicability of the above said observations, the Commission is unable to find any infirmity in the replies provided by the CPIO in response to the instant RTI Application(s).
Moreover, the Complainant did not avail of the opportunity to plead her case or contest CPIO's submissions despite receipt of hearing notice. Thus, no further action is warranted in the instant matters.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO, Respondent Public Authority during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The conduct of the CPIO amounts to a gross disregard for the proceedings of the Commission as well as the provisions of the RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO, IOCL is hereby directed to send his written explanation to the Commission in this regard within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) 11 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 12