Central Information Commission
Sandeep Gautam vs Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals ... on 12 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MRPLT/C/2023/639796.
Shri SANDEEP GAUTAM. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
(MRPL).
Date of Hearing : 10.07.2024
Date of Decision : 10.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.02.2023
PIO replied on : 03.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 16.08.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"(a) Please provide a Copy of MRPL promotion policy for Executives as it existed at the time of DPC for promotion/upgradation from DGM to GM level in 2022.
(b) Please provide a Copy of MRPL promotion policy for Executives as it existed at the time of DPC for promotion/upgradation from DGM to GM level in 2021.
(c) Please provide a Copy of MRPL promotion policy for Executives as it existed at the time of DPC for promotion/upgradation from DGM to GM level in 2020.
(d) Please provide a Copy of promotion policy for Executives as it existed at the time of DPC for promotion/upgradation from DGM to GM level in 2019.
2. Please give dates on which DPC was held and also the dates on which DPC submitted its recommendations for promotion/upgradation from DGM to GM level for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022.
3. Please mention number of times Shri Sandeep Gautam, Emp. No. 11761, was rotated from one Department to another Department in MRPL between Page 1 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2021. Please mention the names of the Departments for each such rotation.
4. Please mention the dates from 01.01.2019 onwards on which the MRPL promotion policy for executives was modified.
5. Please mention the authority that approved the promotion policy for executives that was adopted on 10.06.2020.
6. Please provide a copy of the approval note through which approval was given by the Managing Director MRPL, for issuing MRPL letter no. MRPL/ABC/DEF dated 06.08.2021.
Etc."
The CPIO vide letter dated 03.03.2023 replied as under:-
"We have received your RTI application dtd. 02.02.2023 seeking information against 13 questions in total (including sub-questions) on various matters. The information pertaining to these questions are not available in compiled form and it needs to be retrieved from various files stored at different locations. Therefore, the compilation and collation of the information to reply your multiple queries in your above application will disproportionately divert the resources of this Public Authority. Therefore, this Public Authority invokes the provision under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.04.2023 as under :
"In a considered view of the Appellate Authority, if the CPIO is finding it difficult to provide the information in the form requested, the Appellant can be allowed inspection of records to the extend available at the Public Authority's office in this case. Therefore, CPIO is directed to allow the Appellant for such inspection. CPIO may fix such terms and conditions for the inspection as may be necessary under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the RTI Rules 2012 and also keeping the convenience of Public Authority, security norms followed, disciplinary and office requirements of Public Authority in consideration. CPIO is also directed to fix to schedule immediately not later than 30 days."
In-compliance of order of FAA, the PIO furnished reply dated 09.05.2023 as under:
In pursuance of the subject Order of the First Appellate Authority, we request you to kindly visit the Administration Building of MRPL, located at Post Kuthethoor, Mangalore-575030 on 26th May 2023 at 4:00 pm for the inspection of records.
To facilitate your entry to MRPL, please contact the undersigned upon your arrival at the MRPL Main Gate.
Please note that you must carry a valid ID proof when coming for the inspection of records. Also, please note that you will have to bear the cost of travel to Mangalore, and MRPL will not reimburse any expenses Page 2 incurred on this account. Furthermore, your visit will be subject to security checks and other office rules and procedures...."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 29.06.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 02.07.2024 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing Respondent: Mr. Murlidharan CPIO, MRPL- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He further stated that the inspection of records was offered to him but ta the time of inspection complete file/documents were not produced. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish complete information. He insisted to impose penalty upon the PIO.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that information sought by the Complainant in the instant RTI Application was voluminous in nature and same was in scattered form and compilation records was time-consuming. He averred that inspection of records was offered to the Complainant in compliance of the order of FAA and the Appellant already inspected the relevant records. He stated complete information as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that inspection of records has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act and the Complainant has already inspected the records. Therefore, no malafide intention Page 3 can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx Page 4 "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)