Central Information Commission
Adarsh Mani vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 24 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/100035 +
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/100370 +
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/100707
Adarsh Mani ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division, U.P. State
Office-1, RTI Cell, Indian Oil Bhavan,
TC 39-V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow-226010, Uttar Pradesh .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/11/2022
Date of Decision : 23/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note -The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application (s) filed on : 06/09/2021 & 13/09/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal (s) filed on : 05/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal (s)/Complaint dated : 27/12/2021
1
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/100035
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.09.2021 seeking the following information:2 3 4
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/100370 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2021 seeking the following information:
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/100707 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2021 seeking the following information:5 6
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal(s) dated 05.11.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Uday Narayan, Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales) & Rep. of CPIO present through video-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Complaints have been heard together simultaneously along with nine more Second Appeals/Complaints of the Appellant wherein the Appellant has narrated at length his grievance regarding cancellation of allotment of petrol pump on his land without sharing the specific guidelines on the basis of his land was measured by LEC. In response to instant Appeals no specific oral submissions as such have been tendered by the Appellant during hearing.
The Rep. of CPIO invited attention of the bench towards their consolidated written submission dated 22.11.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
" xxxxxxxx 7 Comments with respect to Case No CIC/I0CLD/A/2022/100035 .....
60. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 27.12.2021 with respect to non receipt of reply of his RTI application dated 06.09.2021 in which he has sought details on 22 points.
61. That the reply with respect to RTI application dated 06.09.2021 was sent to applicant vide letter ref. UPS0-1/Retail/RTI/R-2511/2445 dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure=10).
K Comments with respect to Case No CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/100370......
62. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 27.12.2021 with respect to non receipt of reply of his RTI application dated 13.09.2021 in which he has sought details on 08 points.
63. That the reply with respect to RTI application dated 13.09.2021 was sent to applicant vide letter ref. UPSO-I/Retail/RTI/R-2514-15/2448-49 dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure=11).
L Comments with respect to Case No. CIC/I0CLD/A/2022/100707 .....
64. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 27.12.2021 with respect to non receipt of another reply of his RTI application dated 13.09.2021 in which he has sought details on 12 points.
65. That the reply with respect to RTI application dated 13.09.2021 was sent to applicant vide letter ref. UPS0-1/Retail/RTI/R-2514-15/2448-49 dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure 12)....."
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 Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to cancellation of allotment of petrol pump in his favour based on the on the LEC report of IOCL and also clarifications in this regard from the Respondent's organization.8
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 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."
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:
9"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 further relief is pertinent in the matters.
However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the Commission hereby advises the Appellant to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add....."
In view of the above said point, the CPIO herein is hereby directed to provide a complete copy of his latest written submission along with the annexures free of cost to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10