Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Gail (India) Limited on 12 September, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.
CIC/GAILD/A/2022/645881
CIC/GAILD/A/2022/645880
CIC/GAILD/A/2022/644396
CIC/GAILD/A/2022/637389
CIC/GAILD/A/2022/641891
Shri Samir Sardana ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
GAIL India Ltd.
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2023
Date of Decision : 12.09.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
645881 21.06.2022 28.06.2022 06.07.2022 05.08.2022 09.09.2022
645880 21.06.2022 28.06.2022 06.07.2022 05.08.2022 29.08.2022
644396 21.06.2022 28.06.2022 06.07.2022 05.08.2022 22.08.2022
637389 30.04.2022 27.05.2022 06.06.2022 04.07.2022 22.08.2022
641891 13.05.2022 13.06.2022 20.06.2022 19.07.2022 03.08.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/GAILD/A/2022/645881 (2) CIC/GAILD/A/2022/645880 (3) CIC/GAILD/A/2022/644396 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
1. W.r.t. the Start up Companies in which GAIL has invested, the PIO to state the annual sales and profits of each company (If the PIO cannot do this then PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the Annual reports and Accounts of the Start up Companies)
2. PIO to state the name of any consultant or 3d person used to assess the viability and pricing of the GAIL investments into the Start up Companies in FY 2019 TO FY 2012 Page 1 of 13
3. PIO to provide the appraisal, valuation and approval note of the investment by GAIL in JV Foodworks Pvt Ltd, Attentive Al Solutions, Persapien Innovations, VDT Pipeline Solutions, Geo Climate, Risk Solutions, Arcturus Business Solations, Quanteon Powertrain, Celectric Automotive drives, Orxa energies, PI Beam Labs (If the PIO cannot do this then PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the same)
4. PIO to state the % of shareholding of GAIL in JV Foodworks Pvt Ltd, Attentive Al Solutions, Persapien Innovations, VDT Pipeline Solutions, Geo Climate Risk Solutions, Arcturus Business Solutions, Quanteon Powertrain, Celectric Automotive drives, Orxa energies, Pi Beam Labs,as at the end of FY 2021
5. PIO to provide the Annual report and for FY 2021 or any other latest year for JV Foodworks Pvt Ltd, Attentive Al Solutions. Persapien Innovations, VDT Pipeline Solutions, Geo Climate Risk Solutions, Arcturus Business Solutions, Quanteon Powertrain. Celectric Automotive drives, Orxa energies. PI Beam
6. PIO to state the value of the goods and services procured in Y 2021. from the Start-up companies as under:
JV Foodworks Pvt Ltd, Attentive Al Solutions, Persapien Innovations, VDT Pipeline Solutions. Geo Climate Risk Solutions, Arcturus Business Solutions, Quanteon Powertrain. Celectric Automotive drives, Orxa energies, PI Beam Labs
7. PIO to state the names of the TOP 3 shareholders of the following companies on the date of the investment by GAIL.
JV Foodworks Pvt Ltd, Attentive Al Solutions. Persapien Innovations, VDT Pipeline Solutions, Geo Climate Risk Solutions, Arcturus Business Solutions. Quanteon Powertrain, Celectric Automotive drives, Orxa energies. Pl Beam Labs
8. PIO to state the names of the companies which raised ADDITIONAL EQUITY OR QUASI EQUITY from 3rd parties, AFTER THE FUNDING BY GAIL, AMONG THE FOLLOWING START UP INVESTEES JV Foodworks Pvt Ltd, Attentive Al Solutions, Persapien Innovations, VDT Pipeline Solutions, Goo Climate Risk Solutions, Arcturus Business Solutions, Quanteon Powertrain, Celectric Automotive drives, Orxa energies, PI Beam Labsmas.
The CPIO/DGM (R&D-Start-up), GAIL India Ltd., vide letter dated 28.06.2022 provided the point wise reply as under:-
1. Information's cannot be disclosed due, to Confidential Clause of Investment Agreement signed between the GAIL and Start-Up companies.
2. Information's cannot be disclosed due to Confidential Clause of Investment Agreement signed between the GAIL and Start-Up companies.
3. Information sought is of commercial sensitive nature and cannot be provided as per Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.2005. Moreover no longer Public interest depicted by the applicant.
4. % shareholding for the FY 2021 is given below:
JV Foodworks Pvt Ltd (19.58%), Attentive Al Solutions (10%), Persapien Innovations (5%), VDT Pipeline Solutions (10%), Geo Climate Risk Solutions (8.16%), Arcturus Business Solutions (12%), Quanteon Powertrain (6.84%), Celectric Automotive drives (13.61%), Orxa energies (7.85%), PL Beam Labs (18.51%).Page 2 of 13
5. The information sought is commercially sensitive and related to third party as per section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, hence sought for information cannot be provided.
6. The information sought for the value of the goods and services procured in Year 2021 from the Start up is NIL.
7. Applicant is advised to seek information as per the Section 2(f) of RTI, Act 2005.
Public Authority is not supposed to interpret or collate the information under RTI, Act, 2005.
8. Information sought is commercially sensitive and related to third party. Same cannot be provided as per Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.07.2022. The FAA/CGM (R&D and Start-up), GAIL India Ltd., vide order dated 05.08.2022 stated as under:-
Based on the discussion held during the virtual hearing, duly vetted additional information has been furnished by the process owner to GAIL-Corp. RTI Cell, which in-turn was forwarded to FAA on 05.08.22.
The additional information/comments furnished by concerned process owner and forwarded by Corp. RTI Cell are found to be in order as per the provisions of RTI Statute. CPIO, GAIL is hereby directed to forward the same to the appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this Appeal Disposal Order. No further relief can be granted to the Appellant under reference.
Accordingly, with the above direction, the RTI 1st stage appeal stands disposed of.
The FAA/Executive Director (HR & Law), GAIL India Ltd., vide order dated 04.08.2022 stated as under:-
Information provided by CPIO GAIL was upheld with regards to inputs/comments provided by DGM(F&A). It was stated by DGM(F&A) that information as desired in the format is not maintained and hence information as available on records was provided. In this regard, Applicant may refer to the verdict given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in W.P.(C)6634/2011 & CM No. 13398/2011 titled as The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Commodore Lokesh K Batra and Ors. "There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant".
Further, with regard to information sought by Applicant under the head 'Annual Report', concerned process owners (Business Development and F&A Deptts.) have submitted additional inputs/comments vide communication dtd. 29.07.2022 and 01.08.2022 respectively. CPIO, GAIL is directed to provide the same to RTI Applicant within 10 working days from the receipt of this Appeal Disposal Order.
However, providing of Annual Report of M/s Adverb Tech Pvt. Ltd. comes under the jurisdiction of FAA (R&D and Start-up) and would be taken up accordingly.
Page 3 of 13In compliance with FAA's order dated 05.08.2022, the CPIO/DGM (R&D-Start- up), GAIL India Ltd., vide letter dated 05.08.2022 provided a revised reply to the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been taken on record.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO, GAIL India Limited vide letter dated 01.08.2023, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
The submissions filed hereby are based on the inputs/comments provided by concerned Deemed PIOs i.e. Corp. BD Department, Corp. F&A Deptt. and R&D/Start-up Deptt.
Vide his RTI request (GAIL RTI Dy.No.GAIL/ND/RTI/SamIr Sardana/6900/2022 dtd.21.06.2022, the applicant has sought miscellaneous voluminous information under different category of headings. Public Authority has to depute number of its officers to collate and provide information as sought by the RTI applicant at application/appeal stage.
RTI Applicant has sought major Information divided into various sub- categories in particular format. Besides, personal hearing (thru VC) was also provided to the applicant by First Appellate Authority, so that matter is dealt and disposed with transparency and accountability.
On receipt of the CIC Notice, information as sought by the RTI Applicant was again reviewed and accordingly, updated comments as received from deemed PIO (Start-up deptt.) along with various communications as sent in the past through which information has been provided to the applicant/appellant are attached for kind reference of Commission (letter dtd.01.07.2022, 04.08.2022, 05.08.2022, 10.08.2022, 10.08.2022 and 28.07.2023).
All out efforts has been made by the Public Authority to provide information with respect to all the points raised under different sub-categories by RTI applicant through his voluminous application as per the provisions of RTI Statute. However, It is pertinent to mention that the information has been sought in a manner, which is contrary to the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing similar matter. Excerpts from the decision Is enumerated below: It was stated in the case of CBSE vs Aditya BandopadhyaY & Others on 9th August, 2011, Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009.
"37. 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 Page 4 of 13 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 prioritising ' information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. At the outset he denied receipt of the written submissions from the Respondent. He reiterated his written submission dated 04.08.2023 and stated that similar information was provided by Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) such as ONGC and HPCL. He also stated that all Indian PSUs prepare a summary of the financial performance of their subsidiaries, associates and JVs in accordance with Section 129 (3) of the Companies Act r/w Rule 5 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014. He further argued that the information should be disclosed in public interest as investments were made by a public sector enterprise in companies dealing with Food and Beverage and E-Bikes which are sectors outside the knowledge/ expertise of GAIL and that proper vetting of Shareholders/ Directors of the investee company was required. He also stated that annual reports of the investee company cannot be denied u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 as information pertaining to annual reports of JVs between a government organisation and a private company are disclosed in the public domain. Furthermore, information regarding appraisal, valuation and approval notes of the investments by GAIL in investee companies was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (a) of the Act without any reasons/ justifications as to how information about investments made in a company making beverages, E-Bikes and pollution masks or COVID solutions impact the country's economic security. In addition, he also argued that the FAA did not give him a chance to contest the revised reply of the CPIO. He therefore prayed for a direction to the Respondent to provide complete information and to initiate penal action against the erring officials.
The Respondent represented by Shri Nawal K Subarno, CPIO; Shri Kompal Bali, Link CPIO; Shri S N Jha, CGM (I LNG and Shpp) Shri Rajesh Jain, GM (I LNG) and Shri Subandhu Sinha, DGM (Marketing- LNG) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Subarno reiterated his above mentioned written submissions dated 01.08.2023 and stated that the Appellant was seeking voluminous information on miscellaneous issues under different categories which required collation and compilation of available records. Nonetheless point wise information was provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 28.06.2022 and 05.08.2022. Furthermore, vide letter dated 28.07.2023 issued by the R&D Department GAIL (India) Limited, additional clarifications on the RTI queries were given, a copy of which was enclosed with their written submission which was also Page 5 of 13 sent to the Appellant through post. He added that GAIL has only limited equity participation in the start up companies and these are neither subsidiaries nor affiliate companies of GAIL and that GAIL is not participating in the management of the start up companies. The investee company is providing limited business information to GAIL being a stakeholder for GAIL's reference only as per the terms and conditions and confidentiality clause of Investment Agreement signed between the start up company and GAIL. However, data pertaining to Annual Reports may be available on the ROC/ MCA platforms on payment of the requisite fees.
Decision In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with necessary clarifications has been provided to the Appellant at this stage. Shri Nawal K Subarno, CPIO is directed to forward another copy of his submission to the Appellant through speed post and email for his ready reference. No other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeals which stand disposed off accordingly.
(4) CIC/GAILD/A/2022/637389 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.04.2022 seeking information regarding GAIL Global (USA) LNG LLC; its latest annual report, annual accounts and audit report; value at which GAIL Global (USA) LNG LLC sold its working interest in certain producing properties and underdeveloped acreage totalling approximately 2502 net acres (including 55 producing wells) to EP Energy E&P Company LP, etc The CPIO/DGM (HR-Legal) vide letter dated 27.05.2022 furnished a point wise reply as received from GM (Marketing-Coordination), GAIL India Ltd to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2022. The FAA/Executive Director (Marketing-Gas), GAIL India Ltd., vide order dated 04.07.2022 held as under:-
Virtual hearing was conducted and all the queries preferred through RTI application along with reply provided by CPIO GAIL were discussed among appellant and concerned process owners before FAA. The hearing was conducted as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Most of the information provided by CPIO GAIL is upheld. However, with regard to point no. 1 ( GAIL Global (USA) LNG LLC), point no.1 & 3 (Gas Import), point no. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 (Charter party) and point no. 1, 2 & 3 (Gas derivatives) of RTI application, CPIO GAIL is directed to seekfresh/updated inputs duly reviewed by concerned process owners and provide the same to the RTI Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
With the above direction, the RTI 1st stage appeal stands disposed of.Page 6 of 13
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO/DGM (HR-Legal) vide letter dated 19.07.2022 furnished the information as received from the Corporate Marketing-
Shipping & International LNG Department, Corporate Marketing-NG Department and Corporate F&A Department.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been taken on record.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO, GAIL India Limited vide letter dated 01.08.2023, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
The submissions filed hereby are based on the inputs/comments provided by concerned Deemed PIOs i.e. Corp. Gas Mktg. Department, LNG Deptt. and Corp. F&A Deptt.
Vide his RTI request (GAIL RTI Dy.No.GAIL/ND/RTI/Samir Sardana/6866- 6867/2022 dtd.03.05,2022, the applicant has sought miscellaneous voluminous information under different category of headings. Public Authority has to depute number of its officers to collate and provide information as sought by the RTI applicant at application/appeal stage.
RTI Applicant has sought major information divided into various sub- categories in particular format. Besides, personal hearing (thru VC) was also provided to the applicant by First Appellate Authority, so that matter is dealt and disposed with transparency and accountability.
On receipt of the C1C Notice, concerned above stated Deemed PIOs were again requested to review the information as already provided in the matter. However, no further inputs/comments were provided by them. Accordingly, please find attached all communications through which information has been provided to the applicant/appellant. Same are for kind reference of Hon'ble Commission (letter dtd. 27.05.2022, 08.07.2022 and 19.07.2022).
All out efforts has been made by the Public Authority to provide information with respect to all the points raised under different sub-categories by RTI applicant through his voluminous application as per the provisions of RTI Statute. However, It is pertinent to mention that the information has been sought in a manner, which is contrary to the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing similar matter. Excerpts from the decision Is enumerated below: It was stated in the case of CBSE vs Aditya BandopadhyaY & Others on 9th August, 2011, Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009.
"37. 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 Page 7 of 13 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 prioritising ' information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He reiterated his written submission dated 04.08.2023 and stated that exemption u/s 8 (1) (d) was incorrectly claimed to deny information regarding LNG Import Data; LNG Import Pricing; Pricing Formula; Freight Charges; Long Term and Spot LNG Purchase Data. He argued that the information sought should be disclosed as the entire Long Term Contracts and SPA with Chiniere, Dominion and other Long Term Suppliers is on the portal of SEC, NYSE and DOE as these suppliers are listed companies in NYSE and fall within the purview of the SEC. He further argued that Average Rate of LNG Imports and all Long Term LNG Deals pertaining to Chinese importers are available in the public domain. Similarly total value of claims made by GAIL on LNG suppliers which is statistical information cannot be denied u/s 8 (1) (d) of the Act. In addition, he also argued that the FAA did not give him a chance to contest the revised reply of the CPIO. He therefore prayed for a direction to the Respondent to provide complete information and to initiate penal action against the erring officials.
The Respondent represented by Shri Nawal K Subarno, CPIO; Shri Kompal Bali, Link CPIO; Shri S N Jha, CGM (I LNG and Shpp) Shri Rajesh Jain, GM (I LNG) and Shri Subandhu Sinha, DGM (Marketing- LNG) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Subarno reiterated his written submission and stated that a point wise response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.05.2022 wherein reference was also made to the annual report of GAIL available in the public domain which also contained Gas Derivatives related details.
Decision In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with necessary clarifications has been provided to the Appellant at this stage. Shri Nawal K Subarno, CPIO is directed to forward another copy of his submission to the Appellant through speed post and email for his ready reference. No other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which stands disposed off accordingly.
Page 8 of 13(5) CIC/GAILD/A/2022/641891 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2022 seeking information on various points related to Gas trading; Penalties on LNG contracts; import of LNG from US suppliers by GAIL in FY 2022; import of LNG from Middle East suppliers by GAIL in FY 2022;; details of offer of GAIL to procure 50% stake in Adani Group's Dharma LNG project, Re-Gas rates, Pipeline security and explosions in the last 10 years, etc. The CPIO/DGM (HR-Legal) vide letter dated 13.06.2022 furnished the point wise information as received from DGM (Marketing-Coordination), GAIL India Ltd., to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2022. The FAA/Executive Director (Marketing-Gas), GAIL India Ltd., vide order dated 19.07.2022 stated as under:-
Most of the information provided by CPIO GAIL is upheld and no further relief can be granted regarding the same as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. However, with regard to following points of RTI application, CPIO GAIL is directed to seek fresh/updated inputs duly reviewed by concerned process owners and provide the same to the RTI Appellant (in the manner, the information is readily available) within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
1. Gas Trading: Total gas trading profit & total imported volume of gas by GAIL may be provided for FY 21 and FY 22.
2. LNG USA: Total imported gas volume by GAIL may be provided for FY19 and FY 22
3. LNG Middle East: Total imported gas volume by GAIL may be provided for FY 19 and FY 22 4. Dhamra LNG Port: Inputs from concerned Process owners may be sought (if available) regarding the queries in RTI Application and provide the same to the Applicant as per the provisions of RTI Statute.
5. Pipeline Security: As informed by CPIO, information was sought from HSE & O&M Dept. earlier. However, as informed, since comments/inputs were not received, concerned process owners in the matter are advised to provide the inputs/comments to Corp. RTI Cell as per the provisions of RTI Statute, so that information can be provided to the RTI Appellant.
With the above direction the RTI 1st stage appeal stands disposed of.
In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO cum DGM (HR- Legal), Gail (India) Ltd vide letter dated 27.07.2022 forwarded a reply sent by the GM (O&M- CMG) containing information relating to "Pipeline Security" as under:
Sl No Information Sought Reply/ Comments
1. PIO to state the details of
pipeline explosions in the
last 10 Years, as under
• Year, location and No of
Fatalities
2. PIO to state the value of
the penalties imposed by
PNGRB on GAIL in the
Page 9 of 13
last 5 Years (year by
Year- for any purpose)
3. PIO to state the number In FY 2021-22,
of drones used by GAIL Surveillance of 108 km,
for pipeline security in FY IP-3 Aptibudruk to IP-4 2022 as under in FY Borle section of DUPL in 2022, as under Maharashtra was done using drones.
• Location of p/I
• No of drones used The services of contractor
(Irrespective of type) was hired and GAIL does
not have information on
No. of drones deployed by
the contractor for
execution of the job.
4. PIO to state the number NIL
of drones owned by GAIL Whenever required, GAIL
at the end of FY 2022 hires such services from
Service providers through
bidding process as per
GAILs Contract &
Procurement procedures
5. PIO to state the number NIL
of drones leased or Whenever required, GAIL
rented by GAIL in FY hires such services from
2022 and the name of Service Providers through
lessor bidding process as per
GAILs Contract &
procurement procedures
6. PIO to state the name of Contract for
the vendor which implementation of PIDS
supplied the PIDS (or in GAIL was awarded to
state whether GAIL "allowing vendors:
developed the same.)
1.M/s Commtel Networks
Private Limited
2. M/s Paramount Wires
and Cables Limited.
7. GAIL to provide a copy of
the findings observed or
report prepared which
documents the result of
the pilot project on
satellite monitoring of its
610 Km Dahej Vijaipur
pipeline.
It was also mentioned that replies to points 1, 2 and 7 pertaining to "Pipeline Security" may be taken from the HSE, RA and R& D Department.
Page 10 of 13In compliance to the FAA's order another reply dated 25.07.2022 was provided by the CPIO and DGM (HR-Legal), GAIL (India) Ltd to the Appellant, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
2. Sequel to compliance on the appeal disposal order dated 19.07.2022, we are furnishing the information as received from Corporate FBA Department, Corporate Mktg-IGS Department, Corporate Business Development Group and Corporate HSE Department vide Communications dated 20.07.2022, 21.07.2022, 22.07.2022 and 25.07.2022 respectively as per Annexure-Y. Remaining inputs, if any, would be provided, as and when the same is received from process owner.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023, which has been taken on record.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO, GAIL India Limited vide letter dated 01.08.2023, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
The submissions filed hereby are based on the inputs/comments provided by concerned departments/Deemed PIOs i.e. Corp. Gas Mktg. Department, Corp. O&M Deptt., Corp. FM Deptt., Corp. Mktg.-IGS deptt. and BD group.
Vide his RTI request (GAIL RTI Dy.No.GAIL/ND/RTI/Samir Sardana/6870/20 22 dtd.0 3.05.20 22, the applicant has sought miscellaneous voluminous information under different category of headings. Public Authority has to depute number of its officers to collate and provide information as sought by the RTI applicant at application/appeal stage.
•RTI Applicant has sought major information divided into various headings & sub-categories. • Information has been sought in particular formats. It is already mandated through various CIC's decisions that information doesn't needs to be created in the form as sought by RTI applicant.
Information has been sought in vague manner. No specific querries were raised by the applicant in his RTI application. Most of the information was not sought as per Section 2(f) of RTI Statute. • Personal hearing (thru VC) was provided to the RTI Appellant by First Appellate Authority, so that matter is dealt and disposed with transparency and accountability.
On receipt of the CIC Notice, concerned officers/Deemed PIOs were again requested to review the information as already provided in the matter. However, no further inputs/comments were provided by them. Accordingly, please find attached all the communications through which information has been provided to the applicant/appellant. Same are for kind reference of Page 11 of 13 Hon'ble Commission (letter dtd.13.06.2022, 19.07.2022, 25.07.2022 and 27.07.2022).
All out efforts has been made by the Public Authority to provide information with respect to all the points raised under different sub-categories by RTI applicant through his voluminous application as per the provisions of RTI Statute. However, It is pertinent to mention that the information has been sought in a manner, which is contrary to the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing similar matter. Excerpts from the decision Is enumerated below: It was stated in the case of CBSE vs Aditya BandopadhyaY & Others on 9th August, 2011, Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009.
"37. 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 prioritising ' information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Facts emerging during the hearing The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He reiterated his written submission dated 04.08.2023 and stated that exemption u/s 8 (1) (d) was incorrectly claimed. He argued that the while information was denied by GAIL in the present matter, the entire Long Term Contracts and SPA with Chiniere, Dominion and other Long Term Suppliers is on the portal of SEC, NYSE and DOE as these suppliers are listed companies in NYSE and fall within the purview of the SEC. He further stated that he was not seeking price data but quantity and value of LNG/ Spot LNG purchased which is not sensitive information. Similarly information regarding LNG import data was also incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (d) despite the fact that the USDOE has made a monthly listing of all the shipments made to GAIL with the name of port and the quantity/ name of the ship and the destination port. Also, when China can disclose their long terms commitments with US, Australian and Qatari contractors, disclosure should also be made by GAIL. The Appellant also argued that no information was provided regarding the results of the pilot project on satellite monitoring of the 610 Kms Dahej Vijaipur pipeline.
Page 12 of 13The Respondent represented by Shri Nawal K Subarno, CPIO; Shri Kompal Bali, Link CPIO; Shri S N Jha, CGM (I LNG and Shpp) Shri Rajesh Jain, GM (I LNG) and Shri Subandhu Sinha, DGM (Marketing- LNG) participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Subarno stated that the information sought was vague and desired in particular formats by the Appellant collating which would disproportionately divert their resources. Nonetheless vide letters dated 13.06.2022, 19.07.2022, 25.07.2022 and 27.07.2022 information as per available record was provided by them.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Shri Nawal K Subarno, CPIO is directed to forward another copy of his submission to the Appellant through speed post and email for his ready reference. No other intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which stands disposed off accordingly. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
Before concluding, the Commission also draws attention to its observations made in the batch of Second Appeals filed against NPCIL in CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/657278, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635779, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/657277, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635780, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/646550, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/646302, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/641872, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635775, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635776, CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/635777 regarding misuse of the RTI mechanism by the Appellant while resorting to filing multiple RTI applications on diverse issues which requires collation and compilation of records by the public authority.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 13 of 13