Central Information Commission
S. Ravi vs Ministry Of Petroleum & Natural Gas on 3 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमार्ग, मुनिरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MOPNG/C/2022/666819
Shri S. Ravi शिकायतकर्ता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2024
Date of Decision : 03.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.10.2022
PIO replied on : 28.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 04.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 24.11.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 16.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 13.10.2022 seeking the following information:-
"A. Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) Reply to my RTI application dated 01/09/22 (copy attached). DPE referred to their OMs dated 03.08.2017, 04.08.2017 & 07.09.2017 (available on the website i.e. www.dpe.gov.in) as guidelines to CPSEs for paying allowances and perquisites.
B. Conveyance Running & Maintenance expenses (CRME) policy, Approval note for CMRE for Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL, CPSE under MoPNG), and copy of the reply to my RTI application by MRPL. Copy of the above document, if required can be provided to CPIO to his email Id, when the email id is provided to me (due to file size restriction in online submission).
This refers to the above documents received for my RTI application. MRPL is paying an allowance in the name of CRME to their employees. The policy provides different rates per KM for diesel /Petrol vehicles for a fixed km. There is no method or formula to fix the km and rate per km. For CGMS, GGMS & ED in addition to Petrol expenses, driver salary, parking Charges, etc. are paid irrespective of whether they engaged a driver or not. MRPL stated that payment is released based on claims submitted by the employees with self-declaration, without any verification for actual km used, driver, engaged and diesel or petrol Vehicle, etc. As per MRPL, they Page 1 of 5 are paying CMRE as per downstream industry practice in the petroleum sector.
MRPL approval note for CMRE (page 3), it is mentioned that CMRE was outside the preview of the DPE circular. However, CMRE payment is not featured/permitted in any of the DPE OM referred by DPE as outside the preview of the ceiling of 35% of Basic Pay. Hence, if all the allowances are to be paid strictly as per DPE guidelines then this CMRE payment is a blatant violation of DPE guidelines.
Please provide information for the following:
1. As stated by MRPL, MRPL and other downstream industries under MoPNG pay the CRME or similar allowance outside the preview the of DPE OM ceiling of 35% of Basic Pay. Please inform the provisions/guidelines/ Power rest with the Administrative Ministry, MoPNG to pay CMRE or similar allowances which are not featured in any of the DPE OM as outside the preview of the ceiling of 35% of Basic Pay.
2. Please inform the total amount paid as CMRE or similar allowances by CPSEs under MoPNG per annum.
3. Please inform the various allowances permitted to employees by MoPNG as Administrative Ministry to the CPSEs under MoPNG, which are outside the preview of the DPE ceiling of 35% of Basic Pay.
4. Please inform the action initiated by MoPNG against CPSEs under MoPNG for violation of DPE guidelines.
5. Please inform the mechanisms followed by MoPNG to monitor the Pay and allowance paid by CPSEs under MoPNG.
6. Please inform from whom/which authority MoPNG obtained approval to permit CPSEs under MoPNG to pay allowances, which are outside the preview of the DPE ceiling of 35% of Basic P"
The CPIO/Under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, vide letter dated 28.10.2022 replied as under:-
"In this regard, it is stated that as far as Refinery Branch is concerned, the requisite information is not available with Refinery Branch. However, the information may likely to be available with CPIO & Under Secretary (OMC)/ CPIO & Under Secretary (GP)/ CPIO & Under Secretary (LPG)/ CPIO & Under Secretary (Exploration) of this Ministry & CPIOS, Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL)/Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL)/ Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL)/ Engineers India Limited (EIL). Hence, your RTI application is being transferred to the aforementioned CPIOs with the request to provide you the available information directly under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005."
Another reply dated 01.09.2022 was sent by PIO, Department of Public Enterprises stating as under:
Reply:- Point Nos: 1, 2 & 3:- DPE OMs dated 03.08.2017, 04.08.2017 & 07.09.2017 (available on DPE website i.e.www.dpe.gov.in) inter-alia includes perks allowances may be referred to.Page 2 of 5
Point No. 7, 8 & 9: DPE issues general guidelines in respect of employees of CPSEs and implementation of these guidelines rests with the administrative Ministry/Department of the CPSEs concerned.
Point No. 4,5,& 6: In respect of points nos. 4,5 & 6, it is transferred to Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (MoPNG) with a request to furnish the requisite information if any directly to you.
The CPIO, MRPL responded vide letter dated 01.10.2022 stating as under:
"Reply to point no. 4 MRPL has adopted CRME Policy as per downstream industry practice in the petroleum sector.
Reply to point no. 5 The query requires this Public Authority to refer to various circulars and guidelines issued by DPE (which are available in the public domain) and giving an opinion thereon. Besides, the applicant has raised interrogatories, which is not defined as information under 2(f) of RTI Act. Reply to point no. 6 We do not have information pertaining to CBSE."
Dissatisfied with the response received the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.11.2022. The FAA/Director, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, vide order dated 24.11.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO/US vide letter dated 28.12.2023 reiterating the aforementioned facts and adding as under:
6. As the requisite information was not available with the Refinery Branch of MoP&NG and as per RTI Act, 2005, only the documents/information available in the material form as per the records available with the public authority can be furnished. In view of the same, CPIO disposed off the RTI application while transferring it to the CPIOs of PSUs under its administrative control as well as other CPIOs of this Ministry and given correct and full information in its reply with regard to the RTI. Replies given by some of the CPSEs under MoP&NG, viz. IOCL, HPCL, EIL, NRL & MRPL are enclosed for information.
The HPCL has sent a letter dated 28.11.2022 and IOCL vide letter dated 25.11.2022 informed as under:
Reply to Point Nos. 1, 2 & 3: Allowances, Reimbursement and Monetary benefits payable to Officers (all grades) are communicated through internal notification, to officers/employees, who are active on the payroll of the Corporation. Moreover, there is no apparent larger public interest in sharing of the subject information and the same are Page 3 of 5 exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act 2005, hence we are unable to furnish the same.
Reply to Point Nos. 4, 5 & 6: Queries are not pertaining to our Corporation, hence, we have no reply to offer on the same. A letter dated 28.11.2022 has been received from MRPL stating as under:Reply to Point No. 1
This is a work related reimbursement. As per the DPE OM dated 21 Jan 2013, Executives other than the key officials may be paid the conveyance reimbursement at the approved rates. Reply to Point No. 2, 3, 4, 5 &6 Information sought is not held with this Public Authority.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri P Somashekhar - US was present during the hearing.
The Complainant contended that he had filed the RTI application specifically seeking information from the Ministry, whereas the PIO, MOPNG had unnecessarily transferred the same under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to number of other authorities. He further alleged that not only was the transfer of the application both unnecessary and delayed, no relevant information had been provided to him so far by the public authority. Hence the Complainant insisted that the Respondent be directed to pay compensation.
Respondent on the other hand stated information held by the respective custodians of information, had been duly sent to the Complainant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case at hand reveals that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the various custodians of information, addressing his queries, within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint, it is pertinent to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...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 Page 4 of 5 the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that the case does not merit action under Section 18 of the RTI Act, since there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent.
Hence the complaint is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामरिया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रति) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5