Central Information Commission
Jalandhar Jaiswal vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 29 April, 2020
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/155180-BJ+
CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/155181-BJ
Mr. Jalandhar Jaiswal
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & TM,
LPG, Sultanpur LPG
BPCL, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Sultanpur LPG Territory,Tikaria Industrial Area
Gauriganj, Amethi - 227409
2. CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
UP State Office 1, Indian Oil Bhavan
TC 39 V, Vibhuti Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 226 010
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.04.2020
Date of Decision : 29.04.2020
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/155180-BJ Date of RTI application 16.06.2018 CPIO's response 21.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 19.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 02.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.09.2018 Page 1 of 4 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the scheme under which the Government of Uttar Pradesh provided LPG Distribution Agency called Jaiswal Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak and what were the documents verified for that.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.07.2018 stated that Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak was advertised under RGGLV Plan 2010-11 and Applicant had submitted the permanent disability certificated issued by Chief Medical Officer, Ambedkar Nagar. The copy of certificate available with CPIO related to personal information pertaining to third party, hence, the same was exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 02.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/155181-BJ Date of RTI application 16.06.2018 CPIO's response 13.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 19.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 08.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.09.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the details and copies of verified documents submitted to the Respondent Public Authority to acquire the Petrol Pump License by Smt. Ranjana Jaiswal.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 13.07.2018 stated that the dealership had been allotted to Smt. Ranjana Jaiswal and LOI for the same had also been issued as per policy of the Corporation. The CPIO also informed that certain documents submitted by the applicants for the dealership were personal and sensitive in nature and were furnished to the Corporation in a fiduciary relationship. Hence, the CPIO were unable to provide the same and denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1)
(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and citing CIC judgment ref. 30/IC/(A)/06 dated 20.04.2006 and ref. CIC/LS/C/2012/000502/SH dated 05.06.2014. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jalandhar Jaiswal through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kr. Bhagat, CPIO, BPCL, Amethi and Mr. Amiy Ket Singh, General Manager (RS), UPSO-I, IOCL, Lucknow through WhatsApp;Page 2 of 4
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that the information sought by him had been received and that he did not wish to pursue these matters. In both the matters, the Respondents reiterated the background and its replies. It was articulated that these were personal dispute of the Appellant and that he was using RTI as a forum to contest it.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 24.04.2020, (File No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/155180-BJ) wherein it was stated that an application dated 16.06.2018 seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 was received from the Appellant at Sultanpur office on 28.06.2018.The applicant had asked specific query viz. "Under which quota the LPG distributorship was allotted and what documents were provided". The CPIO, BPCL, Sultanpur had provided the point wise reply to the applicant vide their letter ref. dated 21.07.2018 in which he had provided all the requisite information, Since the information was provided, the FAA did not intervene. The LPG distributorship was allotted under Combined Category (Physically Handicapped), and Permanent Disability Certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Ambedkar Nagar which was a personal document, permission for sharing the same was denied by the proprietor of LPG distributorship. The copy of this letter from proprietor was attached. It was pertinent to mention that during the process of Field Verification of Credentials, a team of two officers had checked all information provided by the Proprietor along with the documents from their originating sources. The same were later forwarded to the higher authority for approval of allotment. Therefore, it was submitted that from Jan 2020, the undersigned had been nominated as CPIO for dealing with RTI matters of BPCL, LPG Department of Uttar Pradesh. In view of the above, the CPIO requested to be allowed to attend the hearing in the instant case.
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 Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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."Page 3 of 4
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 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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and the specific request of the Appellant not to pursue these matters, no further intervention of the Commission is required in these matters.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) (बिमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त( Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] निनांक / Date: 29.04.2020 Page 4 of 4