Central Information Commission
Mrsp Sugunavati vs Ministry Of Petroleum & Natural Gas on 23 February, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000066
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000070
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000071
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000075
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000177
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000179
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000180
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000181
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000182
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000183
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000184
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000539
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000538
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000178
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Date of hearing : 23rd February 2015
Date of decision : 23rd February 2015
Name of the Complainant : Ms. P Sugunavati
53510, 3/18 Brodipet,
Guntur 522 002, A.P.
Name of the Public Authority/ : (1) Central Public Information Officer,
Respondent Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 B Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000070 Prasad Road, New Delhi 110 001 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000071 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000075 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000177 Central Public Information Officer, (2.) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000179 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000180 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000181 'Reliance Humsafer', Second Floor, H.No. 8 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000182 2618/2, Road No. 11, Banjara CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000183 Hills,Hyderabad - 500 034 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000184 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000539 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000538 File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000178 The Complainant was not present. Her representative, Shri G. L. N. Prasad was present at the NIC Studio, Guntur with an authorization letter from her to represent her.
No one was present on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Shri Suresh Tripathi, CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Rangareddy on behalf of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain complaints in respect of fourteen RTI applications filed by the Complainant, four to Respondent No. 1 and the remaining ten to Respondent No. 2.
2. The following four applications were filed to Respondent No. 1:
(a) Files No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000066, CIC/SH/C/2014/000070 and CIC/SH/C/2014/000075: RTI applications dated 21.8.2013, 16.9.2013 and CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 29.10.2013, seeking information regarding the reply filed by the Respondents to the Committee on Petitions of Lok Sabha.
(b) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000071: RTI application dated 25.10.2013, seeking information regarding action taken by the Respondents on certain petitions / applications filed by the Complainant to them.
3. The following ten applications were filed to Respondent No. 2:
(a) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000177: RTI application dated 23.8.2013, regarding payment of rent in respect of a property and related issues.
(b) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000179: RTI application dated 10.11.2013, seeking information on thirty seven points regarding some lease issues.
(c) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000180: RTI application dated 9.11.2013, seeking information on eight points regarding the above mentioned lease issues.
(d) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000181: RTI application dated 23.8.2013, seeking information regarding rental payments in respect of a property and lease issues.
(e) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000182: RTI application dated 23.8.2013, seeking information on nine points concerning lease issues.
(f) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000183: RTI application dated 23.8.2013, seeking information on various issues, as listed above.
CIC/SH/C/2014/000066
(g) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000184: RTI application dated 1.11.2013, seeking information regarding the action taken by the Respondents on certain other RTI applications filed by the Complainant.
(h) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000539: RTI application dated 12.8.2014, seeking information regarding action taken by the Respondents in response to some earlier RTI applications.
(i) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000538: RTI application dated 3.9.2014.
(j) File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000178: RTI application dated 23.8.2013, seeking information regarding the lease issues mentioned above.
4. The Complainant has been filing a large number of RTI applications to Respondent No. 2, seeking information concerning a lease and rental payments etc. The matter regarding provision of information by the Respondents on certain basic issues concerning the lease matters, identified by the Complainant's representative Shri G. L. N. Prasad, was examined at some length by the Commission and order No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000887/SH, CIC/LS/A/2012/001424/SH, CIC/SH/C/2014/000035, CIC/SH/C/2014/000073 and CIC/SH/A/2014/000319 dated 19.12.2014 was passed.
5. No one was present on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in spite of a written notice having been sent to them. However, the representative of the Complainant stated at the CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 outset of the hearing that the Complainant's RTI applications seek information mainly from Respondent No. 2 and that he would like to make a common submission regarding all the fourteen complaints before us. He was allowed to do so. In his submission, he made two points. Firstly, he stated that the Complainant's son Shri P. V. Rama Sastry did not owe an amount of Rs. 52,000/ to M/s Burmah Shell (the predecessor company of Respondent No. 2). On the contrary, Burmah Shell owed some money to him. The Respondents submitted that by an agreement dated 26.10.1964, made between Shri P. V. Rama Sastry and Burmah Shell, Shri P. V. Rama Sastry requested them to pay him in advance the lease rent payable for both the sites up to the period ending 30.4.1980, amounting to Rs. 28,000/ and to set off the same against the total outstanding of Rs. 52,000/ due to Burmah Shell from him. They further stated that at the time of execution of the aforesaid agreement dated 26.10.1964, a Promissory Note for the total outstanding of Rs. 52,000/ was executed in favour of Burmah Shell on behalf of M/s P. V. Krishnaiah and Co. (This issue was also examined in paragraph 12 of our order dated 19.12.2014 mentioned above). In response to our query, the representative of the Complainant stated that Respondent No. 2 should provide documents from their records to establish the outstanding amount of Rs. 52,000/. Respondent No. 2 stated that they have provided whatever information was available with them in response to the various RTI applications filed by the Complainant, including the ten applications mentioned in paragraph 3 above. CIC/SH/C/2014/000066
6. Secondly, the representative of the Complainant referred to the judgment of a court in O.S. 54/1968. He claimed that there have been some discrepancies in the replies given by Respondent No. 2 to the RTI applications concerning this judgment, including the language in which it was delivered. On being asked as to whether he was questioning the genuineness of the judgment, he said that this was not the case. He did not question the genuineness of the judgment, but wished to point out that information regarding the Promissory Note of Rs. 52,000/ and the related issues was provided to the Complainant by Respondent No. 2 on the basis of a copy of the above judgment, which was given by the Complainant herself to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 have not given any information from their records on this and related issues. In the above context, we note that the above point raised by the representative of the Complainant was examined earlier and disposed of in paragraph 13 of our order dated 19.12.2014.
7. Respondent No. 2 stated that the issue concerns litigation within the family of the Complainant regarding a property leased to them. She had filed Suit O. S. 103/2008 for partition and separate possession in the court of IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. The said suit was dismissed with costs on 4.11.2009 and she filed an appeal against the above order in the High Court, which is pending. The representative of the Complainant stated that the Respondents were not a party to the above suit. The Respondents, on the other CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 hand, stated that they were a party to the suit in the lower court and that position remains unchanged in the High Court. The representative of the Complainant stated that it is because the Respondents are "illegally" occupying the property in question that they were made a party to the suit without remedy. The Commission is not concerned with the issue of who the Complainant makes a party to a suit filed by her.
8. The representative of the Complainant prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide additional information concerning the outstanding amount of Rs. 52,000/, mentioned above, from their records. In this context, we note that all the fourteen files before us contain complaints filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. In its judgment dated 28.10.2013 in J. K. Mittal vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. [W.P. (C) No. 6755/2012], the High Court of Delhi has made the following observation: "....there can be no dispute that while considering a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of Subsection (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner."
9. In view of the foregoing, we would refrain from going into the issue of provision of information which, in any case, has been examined at length in our earlier order dated 19.12.2014. As noted in that order, the Respondents have provided copies of various CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 documents more than once, in response to the RTI applications of the Complainant, and also offered explanation in response to the queries of the Complainant more than once. Many of the questions relate to events that are fifty years old and the CPIO cannot be expected to produce information that does not exist on the records of the public authority. We see no ground to conclude that there has been deliberate denial of information by the Respondents. The Complainant and her representatives ought to realise that whatever claim, that she believes she has to the property in question, has to be established in a court of law. Continued filing of a large number of RTI applications, even after the Respondents have provided a good deal of information, adds to the work of the public authority to respond to the same, without adding any further value to the information that the Complainant has already been provided. In the above context, in our order dated 19.12.2014, we also reproduced the following observation of the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 9.8.2011 in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.: "37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
10. In the light of the foregoing, we find no substance in the fourteen complaints before us and these are dismissed.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SH/C/2014/000066 Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/C/2014/000066