Central Information Commission
Shakir vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 16 March, 2023
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/2022/125863
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/126141
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/126246
Shakir अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
MARKETING DIVISION, U.P. STATE
OFFICE-II, RTI CELL, E-8,
SEC.-I, NOIDA-201301, UTTAR PRADESH ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/03/2023
Date of Decision : 15/03/2023
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 applications filed on : 28/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 25/01/2022
First appeals filed on : 14/02/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : 02/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaints dated : 24/05/2022
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/125863
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2021 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 25.01.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 02.03.2022 held as under:2
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/126141 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2021 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 25.01.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 02.03.2022 held as under:3
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/126246 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2021 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 25.01.2022 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 02.03.2022, held as under:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Manoj Gupta, Chief Manager (Retail Sales) present in person.
The Rep. of CPIO by placing reliance on his latest written submissions dated 06.03.2023 submitted that the Appellant has sought details/records pertaining to one of the new RO dealership for location bearing sl.no. 3839, Village Nangla Rai, Tehsil Sadar, Dist. Muzzaffarnagar; mainly to know the reasons for non-selection of certain candidates. He further added that in this regard, the Appellant has also filed the complaint with the IOCL and since the investigation is pending with the concerned department; therefore, the information has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the CPIO that the information sought by the Appellant are majorly in the nature of seeking clarifications from the PIO which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also the fact remains that it also contains the elements of personal information of concerned third party candidates who had applied for RO dealership, which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, for better understanding to the mandate of RTI Act, 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. His attention is also 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] wherein 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 5 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, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
6"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Further, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, attention of the Appellant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of 7 investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the denial of information by the CPIO by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act are rendered inconsequential.
In view of the foregoing, no relief can be granted in the matters.
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and always quote correct exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act while denying any information in response to RTI Applications in future.
The appeals 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 / 8