Central Information Commission
Mrsubhash Chandra Agrawal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 4 April, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000136
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 28th March 2016
Date of decision : 4th April 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal,
1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi 110 006
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent M/o. Petroleum & Natural Gas,
Ms. Sushma Rath, (JS), Room No. 211, 'B' Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Central Public Information Officer, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Head Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, G9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051,
3. Central Public Information Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 38, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, P.O. Box No. 155, Mumbai 400001.
4. Central Public Information Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate P.B. No. 688, Mumbai 400001 CIC/SH/A/2016/000136 RTI Application filed on : 20/07/2015 CPIO replied on : 07/08/2015, 20/08/2015, 04/11/2015, 24/09/2015, 31/08/2015 First Appeal filed on : 14/09/2015 and 09/10/2015 First Appellate Authority order on : 04/11/2015 and 15/12/ 2015 2nd Appeal received on : 13/01/2016 The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Ms. A. Ushabala, Under Secretary and CPIO, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
2. Shri Manish Grover, DGM (LPG), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
3. Shri S. K. Rai, Chief Regional Manager and CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Shri B. B. Darnal, Chief Manager and CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eighteen points regarding action taken on certain submissions made by him to the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas through the portal www.pgportal.gov.in, the total number of LPG connections in the country in different categories (Domestic with CIC/SH/A/2016/000136 and without subsidy, commercial and others), number of LPG connections where consumers availing of LPG subsidy took up to twelve gas cylinders or more during a year, monthly publicity cost for surrendering LPG subsidy from 1.6.2014, information on action taken for providing LPG subsidy only to persons having family incomes below some stipulated limit and related issues. The CPIO of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas responded on 7.8.2015 and transferred some queries of the RTI application to the CPIOs of OMCs. The CPIO of the IOCL responded on 20.8.2015 and 4.11.2015, that of HPCL on 24.9.2015 and of the BPCL on 31.8.2015. The Appellant pursued the matter with the respective FAAs. Not satisfied with the information received by him, he has filed an appeal to the Commission, praying for direction to the Respondents to provide the complete information sought by him.
2. In respect of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, the Appellant requested for the information sought at points No. 1 (a) to (d) of the RTI application, as well as at point No. 7. At points No. 1 (a) to (d), he had sought information regarding the action taken on each aspect of his undermentioned submissions routed to the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas through the portal www.pgportal.gov: "a 'Reducing prices of petrol and diesel brings no relief in pricereduction' (MPANG/E/2014/07051 dated 01.11.2014) CIC/SH/A/2016/000136 b. 'Be practical Mr Prime Minister: Abolish LPGsubsidy for affording ones rather than appealing them for surrendering voluntarily' (MPANG/E/2015/02368 dated 28.3.2015) c. 'LPGconnection should be autodisconnected after PNG pipelineconnection (MPANG/E/2015/04018 dated 05.07.2015) d 'Steps to save on petroleumproducts' (MPANG/E/2015/04205 dated 20.7.2015)"
The Appellant submitted that he has not been informed as to what action was taken on his submissions. On perusing the replies given by different CPIOs, we too note that little information was provided to the Appellant regarding the action / view taken on his submissions. Since the pg portal has been set up to receive public grievances / suggestions, the Ministries concerned must be giving due consideration to the grievances and suggestions received through it and should provide the information regarding the action / view taken by them to those forwarding their grievances / suggestions. Therefore, Ms. A. Ushabala, Under Secretary and CPIO of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas is directed to provide to the Appellant the information in response to points No. 1 (a) to (d) of the RTI application, after obtaining it, if necessary, from OMCs. With regard to point No. 7 regarding the publicity cost in respect of surrender of LPG subsidy, the CPIO of CIC/SH/A/2016/000136 IOCL stated that he has provided the information to the Appellant. He clarified that since expenditure on this item is centralised at the IOCL, the information provided by him also covers the other public authorities.
3. Coming to the information required from the OMCs, the Appellant referred to points No. 2 to 9. With regard to point No. 2, he questioned the response of the CPIO of IOCL that commercial LPG is a deregulated product and information concerning the same is of commercial confidence, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. In this context, we note that the information sought at point No. 2 is only regarding the number of commercial connections and not their details. Therefore, there is no reason to apply Section 8 (1) (d) in this case. Taking into account the records and the submissions made before us, we direct the CPIOs of IOCL, HPCL and BPCL to provide to the Appellant the specific information sought by him at points No. 2 to 6 and 9 of the RTI application. Since only a part of the information has been provided earlier in a disjointed manner, the CPIOs should give a comprehensive reply on the above points, repeating the information, if any, provided earlier in respect of any point. The Appellant also stated that the information in response to point No. 8 has not been provided to him. At this point, he had enquired about the estimated total amount of subsidy saved by way of surrendering of CIC/SH/A/2016/000136 LPG subsidy by consumers. The CPIOs of OMCs are directed to provide the available information in this regard to the Appellant.
4. The CPIOs should comply with our above directives, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of charge.
5. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
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/A/2016/000136