Central Information Commission
Prasath S. vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 21 September, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No.CIC/BPCLD/A/2020/662084
Mr. Prasath S. ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Retail-Southern Region
1 Ranganathan Gardens, Off. 11th
Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai
Tamil Nadu-600040
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 07-09-2019 FA : 30-11-2019 SA : 30-01-2020
CPIO : 03-10-2019 FAO : 23-12-2019 Hearing: 16-09-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai. The appellant seeking information about Tirunelveli BPCL Depot OSHAS 18001 Certificate detail is as under:-
"Tirunelveli BPCL Depot has obtained BS OSHAS 18001 certification please provide details information with evident."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information under section 8(1)(e).The appellant filed the first appeal dated 30-11-2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority disposed the appeal vide order dated 23-12-2019 and upheld CPIO's reply. He has filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Page 1 of 4Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite being served the hearing notice. The respondent, Shri V Sundara Raghavan, CPIO/Chief Manager attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 09.09.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 03.10.2019, they have denied the information to the appellant under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the said certificate is an internal document and also protected under Official Secrets Act, 1923. More over the same is not required in the larger public interest, hence the same has been denied under the aforesaid provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding Tirunelveli BPCL Depot OSHAS (Occupational Safety Health Assessment Series) 18001 Certificate detail which is an internal document of the Organization which contains the details related to storage capacity of tank, disaster control management plan, sludge removal process, fire fighting system, personal protective equipment, water & foam availability to extinguish the fire including first aid medical details & all other safety equipments available in depot and protected under Official Secrets Act, 1923. The disclosure of such information will impair the national security of the organization & will lead to the risk to their safety. The Commission observes that the appellant has also failed to establish larger public interest in seeking such information; therefore the respondent has rightly denied the information sought under relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the respondent during the hearing that the information sought by the appellant is held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the same cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission also examined the nature of fiduciary relationship involved in the instant matter whereby the information about OSHAS 18001 Certification of Tirunelveli Depot has been sought which is highly confidential and official and therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:
Page 2 of 422. ".... But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary
- a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer."
8. In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 03.10.2019 is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा) Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक / Date : 16-09-2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Retail-Southern Region 1 Ranganathan Gardens, Off. 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600040
2. Mr.Prasath S. Page 4 of 4