Central Information Commission
Shri. Ishwar Lal vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 7 October, 2009
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No.4454/IC(A)/2009 dated 7th September 2009)
Decision No.4620/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000578
Dated, the 7th October, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Ishwar Lal
Name of the Public Authority: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
i
Decision:
1. In our Decision notice No.4454/IC(A)/2009 dated 7th September 2009 the
following observations were made:
• "The CPIO, Shri S.S. Bapat, has furnished partial information while the
remaining information has been refused on the ground that relevant files are
not traceable. Under section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, every public authority is
required to 'maintain all its records duly categorized and indexed in a
manner and the form which facilitates the right to information.' In view
of this, denial of information on the basis of non-availability of records is not
acceptable.
• The fact that the respondent, i.e. IOCL had initiated the process of allotment
of dealership and it did complete the process in respect of all the locations and categories, except Rohatak under defence category, for which the appellant was one of the applicants. The appellant has been pursuing the matter ever since the postponement of interviews in 1999. He has thus engaged the respondent through various representations from time to time. Moreover, the process of award of dealership under defence category for Rohtak has not been completed as yet. It cannot be accepted therefore that the records and files have been weeded out or not maintained or not traceable. In view of this, and what has been averred by the appellant that due to alleged corrupt practices in allotment of dealership, the appellant has been deprived of the opportunity of final interview and possibly award of LPG dealership in his favour. The respondents have not furnished the evidence of i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1 having made a sincere effort to trace and search the relevant files and record. We therefore conclude that the CPIO, Shri Bapat and the Appellate Authority Shri Gautam Datta have refused to provide the desired information for malafied reasons, mainly to cover up inefficiency or lack of accountability of the respondent, i.e. IOCL. If a CPIO's contention is accepted that information cannot be furnished because the file is 'not traceable', it would be impossible to implement the Act. And, dream of setting out a practical regime for providing access to information held by a public authority would be shattered.
• The CPIO, Shri Bapat is held responsible for violation of section 7 (1) of the Act since he has refused to provide the information without reasonable cause. Shri Bapat is therefore directed to show cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on him for denial of information for malafied reasons on the pretext of missing records. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 24th September, 2009 at 4.30 pm, failing which penalty would be imposed. In case he has sought the assistance of the concerned officers, who may be deemed PIO, u/s 5(4) of the Act, he should identify and advise them to be present in the hearing to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed on them also, on the ground of mis-management of records and/or creation of obstacles in sharing of information.
• The respondent, IOCL is also held responsible for improper record management, due to which vital information relating to allotment of LPG dealership have gone missing. This reflects both lack of proper record management by the concerned officials who were associated with the LPG dealership selection process as well as lackadaisical attitude of officials, who chose to refuse the information on the ground that 'files are not traceable' which is not an acceptable ground for denial of information to the affected persons. The respondents have also not submitted relevant evidence of having made sincere efforts to search and trace the file.
• We therefore hold that the respondents are suppressing vital facts for malafied reasons. Due to this, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses, including mental harassment and right to pursue a profession due to non-availability of information, which is clearly related to his livelihood. He therefore needs to be compensated, u/s 19 (8) (b) of the Act. The Chairman, IOCL or his nominee, should therefore explain as to why a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) should not be awarded to the appellant. The Chairman, IOCL or his nominee, should submit an explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on the date and time indicated above, failing which above amount of compensation would be awarded."
22. In response to the above show cause notice, the submissions made by both the parties - oral and written were examined during the hearing on 24th September 2009. The respondents have submitted as under:
(i) From the additional details provided now it is clear that the DSB, which was an independent authority under the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, was abruptly disbanded on 22.04.1999 due to which the interviews for Rohtak fixed for the next day was postponed. Later as per the directions of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, review was conducted and Distributorship at Rohtak under Defence Category was dropped. Indian Oil has still not appointed any other distributor in lieu of this category of distributor at Rohtak. Under the circumstances, we humbly submit that there is no mala fide in not conducting the interviews.
(ii) The delay, if any in furnishing the information may be condoned as CPIO had no mala fide intention for causing any harassment to the applicant but acted in good faith. You may kindly appreciate that in spite of the records being old, the CPIO made all sincere efforts through the concerned officials to locate them and to provide the available information to the applicant.
3. An assessment of the replies given by the respondent, IOCL show that:
• The appellant was initially informed that the information asked for was not traceable. The information asked for relate to about 12 years old and as per the Record Retention Policy of the respondent, the information is not maintained or preserved. Hence, it cannot be furnished.
• Subsequently, he was informed that the Dealer Selection Board (DSB) was disbanded by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and now the Commission has been informed that the DSB at Rohtak under Defence Category was put on hold or dropped. "Indian Oil has still not appointed any other distributor in lieu of this category of distributor at Rohtak".
• The respondent IOCL has not submitted any evidence to show that the advertised vacancy for award of dealership under Defence category has been dropped or cancelled.
4. Clearly, the respondent, IOCL has not given a clear and acceptable response about the finalization of decision about the dealership in question. In fact, the final decision about the award of dealership has not been taken. And, the reasons for not doing so is not clearly stated, which reflects lack of accountability of the respondent to the society. The fact is that the appellant has 3 also not been refunded the requisite deposits made by him nor he has been replied to the representations submitted by him to the various authorities including the respondent. All this shows both malafide reasons for withholding the information and for not completing the necessary formalities for award of dealership for about 12 years or so. The Commission, therefore, holds that the respondent's CPIO, Sh. S.S. Bapat has deliberately provided incorrect and misleading information without any reasonable cause and is therefore held responsible for providing false and misleading information for which he is liable to pay a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), u/s 20(1) of the Act. The above amount of penalty is thus imposed on him.
5. The Chairman, IOCL is directed to deduct Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five Thousand only) from the salary of the CPIO, Shri. S.S. Bapat, in five equal installments of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, with effect from November 2009, and deposit the same by way of Bankers cheques drawn in favour of PAO, CAT, payable at New Delhi, to the PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi, under intimation to the Registrar, Central Information Commission.
6. A major concern of the RTI is to contain corruption and to promote accountability in functioning of public authorities. The appellant, an ex- serviceman and a physically challenged person, has alleged that he could not pay the necessary bribe to the concerned officials and, therefore, there has been inordinate delay in award of LPG dealership for which he was a candidate and have had every chance to be selected on the basis of merit. The LPG dealership has neither been disbanded or dropped nor finally decided as yet, even after the lapse of about 12 years. As a result of which, the appellant has suffered all kinds of losses, including an opportunity to earn for his living after retirement as a disabled ex- service man. Because of the lackadaisical attitude of the concerned officials of the respondent or lack of desirable accountability of the respondent in this regard, the appellant has indeed suffered all kinds of losses in seeking access to factual information on the basis of which he could have sought legal relief from the competent authority or he could have got his grievances redressed. Lack of appropriate action on his various representations, including incorrect and misleading information provided to him under the RTI, as mentioned above, he has lost valuable opportunities of work and employment. There is, therefore, no reason why he should not be suitably compensated for the detriment suffered by him in seeking access to correct information about the award of LPG dealership, for which he was a candidate. An amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is, therefore, awarded to the appellant, Shri. Ishwar Lal, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, to compensate for all types of losses - time and resources, in seeking access to information about the outcome of the selection process initiated by the respondent.
7. The Chairman, IOCL, is therefore directed to arrange to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation to the appellant, Shri. 4 Ishwar Lal through a bank draft on or before 30th November 2009, failing which penal interest @ 10% would be applicable.
8. The respondent, IOCL's Chairman is also directed to enquire into the matter relating to the inordinate delay in the selection process for award of dealership in question. An appropriate action as per the guidelines for award of dealership should be taken at the earliest and accordingly communicated to the appellant within three months from the date of issue of this decision. The Chairman would be free to take appropriate action against the concerned staff, who may be responsible for the delay in completing necessary formalities for award of dealership and those who are responsible for providing such misleading information as the record is 'not traceable', not maintained as per the record retention policy, DSB disbanded/put on hold/dropped and no decision has been taken, etc.
9. A compliance report should also be submitted to the Commission soon after the action as above is taken.
10. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Ishwar Lal, 3 Old Housing Board Colony, Kanheli Road, Rohtak -
124 001 (Haryana).
2. Shri. S.S. Bapat, General Manager & PIO, Delhi & Haryana State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Shri Gautam Datta, Appellate Authority (RTI), IOCL, Marketing Division, Head Office, G-9, Ali yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051.
4. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, 3079/3, JB Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110049.
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 5