Central Information Commission
Mahesh Narayan Trivedi vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 31 July, 2020
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/HPCLD/A/2019/640627-BJ
Mr. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi
(E mail [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Udaipur Retail Regional Office:
50, Saheli Nagar, New Polo Ground,
Udaipur - 313001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2020
Date of Decision : 31.07.2020
Date of RTI application 17.12.2018
CPIO's response 26.12.2018
Date of the First Appeal 04.03.2019
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the relevant documents/portion of company Reply No. dated 29.08.2018 which contains the issue of False Undertaking, Documents and Facts filed by Shri P. K. Sahu to get the regular renewal cum reinstatement of suspended petroleum license number (as mentioned); relevant documents/portion of plaint number 104/2018 and 150/2018 filed before City Civil Court, Udaipur which contains the issue of False Undertaking, documents and facts filed by Shri P. K. Sahu to get the regular renewal cum reinstatement of suspended petroleum license.
Page 1 of 7The Chief Regional Manager, vide its letter dated 26.12.2018 requested the Appellant to forward a clear and understandable query as the queries raised in points (a) & (b) of the application was not clear. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Bohra through VC; Respondent: Mr. Suneet Batty, Head Legal, North West Zone and Mr. Vijay Kumar Patel, DGM & CPIO, Ahmedabad Retail Region and Mr. Vineet Kumar Pohani, CPIO & Dy. GM, Udaipur through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and contested the reply of the CPIO stating that his First Appeal had been received by the Respondent Public Authority but the same was knowingly not disposed of by the FAA. In support of his contention, he referred to page 09 of his additional submission dated 28.07.2020 wherein the speed post tracking was attached. He further requested the Commission not to remand back this matter to the FAA/ED-Retail as he is interested and related party in the matter. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the RTI application of the Appellant was received in their office on 20.12.2018 and the same was replied on 26.12.2018 requesting the Appellant to forward a clear and understandable query as the queries raised were vague and unclear. With regard to First Appeal filed by the Appellant, it was submitted that the same was never received by the Appellate Authority, as per record. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and submitted that he had also enclosed a copy of the First Appeal with Second Appeal filed before the Commission and that the First Appeal could have been disposed of at that stage. He further alleged that his Grievance raised in CPGRAM Portal was also closed without giving any justification. On being queried by the Commission whether any Court proceeding was pending at this stage, the Respondent replied in the affirmative and stated that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Civil Court, Udaipur. While contesting the above averments of the Respondent, the Appellant submitted that he had not filed any Court Case and the dealer of HPCL had filed cases. The Appellant further submitted that there is no court case pending pertaining to the issues raised in the RTI application of "false undertaking".
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 22.07.2020 wherein a point-wise submission was made in addition to his earlier submissions, grounds of Appeal and documents in support of his 2nd Appeal filed before the Commission. A reference of the decision of the Commission was also made with regard to supply of information in File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/634049-BJ dated 04.06.2020. Another decision of the Commission was also referred in File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157590-BJ dated 16.04.2020. He inter-alia prayed to the Commission to give necessary direction to CPIO-HPCL to provide the pending documents/information as sought in the original RTI application dated 17.12.2018 within a reasonable period of 15 days as also to provide clear, precise, cogent and specific and updated point-wise information.Page 2 of 7
The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Appellant dated 28.07.2020 wherein the reply provided by the CPIO was point-wise contested by the Appellant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 22.07.2020 wherein while narrating the background of the case, at the outset it was submitted that the Appellant had been continuously trying to tarnish the image of HPCL by raising several unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations against HPCL and HPCL officers, who have been taken decision and acted in good faith, on the basis of available documents and circumstantial evidence thereof. Furthermore, it was submitted that the First Appeal of the Appellant was never received by the FAA, as per available records. It was also requested to the Commission to allow the FAA to decide the First Appeal made by the Applicant, so that the CPIO is given a fair chance to defend his position in the subject-matter before the Appellate Authority.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information Page 3 of 7 relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."Page 4 of 7
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
Page 5 of 7DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the FAA to examine the Appeal filed by the Appellant and furnish clear, cogent and precise response to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email. The Respondent is also instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within the above stipulated time period.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 31.07.2020 Page 6 of 7 Copy to:
1. The CMD, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Petroleum House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020
2. Executive Director (Retail) and First Appellate Authority, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hindustan Bhawan, 8-Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001 Page 7 of 7