Gopal Jee Gupta vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 21 October, 2020

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gopal Jee Gupta vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 21 October, 2020

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                             के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/174871

Gopal Jee Gupta                                          ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation                             ... ितवादी/Respondent
Limited, Mathura Refinery,
Mathura.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 24-08-2018           FA    : 27-10-2018          SA : 31-12-2018

CPIO : 27-09-2018          FAO : 05-12-2018            Hearing: 16-10-2020

                                  ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mathura Refinery, Mathura seeking following information:-

1. "Certified copies of certificates obtained under rule 18(1) of section 7 of CLR&A Act 1970 by the Principal Employers of establishments for employment of contract labourers from Jan-

2015 to Aug-2018, in different departments of Mathura Refinery and Refinery Nagar.

2. certified copies of certificates issued to the contractors under rule 21(2) to obtain Labour licenses under section 12 of CLR&A Act 1970 for employment of contract labourers from Jan 2015 to Aug -2018, in different departments of Mathura Refinery and Refinery Nagar.

3. Name and address of those hired contractors mentioning their jobs who employed less than 20 contract labourers in Mathura Refinery in the years between Jan 2015 to Aug 2018.

Page 1 of 4

4. Certified copies of register of hired contractors maintained by every principal employers in respect of each registered establishments under rule 74 of CLR&A Act 1970

5. Certified copies of annual returns filed under rule 82(2) of year Jan 2015 to Aug 2018 by principal employers of registered establishments of Mathura Refinery.

6. Certified copies of applications granted by principal employer to the contractors either possess labour licenses or not, to obtain entry gate passes or permissions from CISF for engagement of contract rabourers on the jobs undertaken from principal employers of establishments either registered or not under CLRA Act of Mathura Refinery."

2. The CPIO responded on 27-09-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-10-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 05-12- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Gopal Jee Gupta attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Vikash Jhajharia, AM(Legal) and Ms. Nabh Jyoti Das, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant stated that the respondent has wrongly taken shelter u/Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying the information on the premise of being voluminous.

5. The respondent submitted that the information in the manner sought by the appellant would involve compilation from voluminous records by a significant number of officials and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority from the efficient discharge of its normal functions. Therefore, it attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, which reads as under:-

"(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."

Decision:

6. This Commission observes that the CPIO is expected to provide the information which is readily available with him. He is not required to collect and Page 2 of 4 compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. As such, the CPIO cannot be expected to compile the information which requires disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this aspect, it is apt to mention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:-

"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 counter-productive 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, tranquillity 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 a public authorities prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

7. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principle enunciated in the aforesaid case-law, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the CPIO is not obliged to compile any fresh data which entails disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Page 3 of 4

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.


                                                              नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                          Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                        Information Commissioner (सू

                                                            दनांक / Date:16-10-2020

Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)



Addresses of the parties:


1.    The CPIO
      Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Nodal CPIO,
      RTI Cell, Mathura Refinery: Distt-Mathura,
      UP- 281005.

2.    Gopal Jee Gupta




                                                                          Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission