Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.R P Srivastava vs Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas on 19 June, 2012

            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
            Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                            File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/004212
                                    CIC/LS/A/2011/004231

Appellant                        :         R P Srivastava

Respondent                       :         HPCL
Date of hearing        :         19.6.2012

Date of decision       :         19.6.2012

The above cited cases are being disposed of through a Common order. Heard today dated 19.6.2012. Appellant present. However, nobody has appeared for HPCL, despite notice. The case wise position is as follows:-

File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/004212

2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 21.3.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:-

"1. Please provide the information on how many officers have been promoted since 1.1.2007, who have CBI/ Vigilance case pending / ongoing against them.
2. Please provide the information with each officers name, case number details and since when the cases are registered against them."

3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 19.4.2011, stating therein that disclosure of requested information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals concerned.

4. Aggrieved with this decision, the appellant had filed first appeal dated 29.4.2011 with Executive Director, HRD (AA) but no order whatsoever appears to have been passed thereon.

5. It may be underlined that the appellant has sought names of officers of HPCL who were given promotion despite CBI / Vigilance cases pending against them. In my opinion, such officers do not deserve protection of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. The grounds adduced by the CPIO in denying this information, therefore, can not be accepted by this Commission. In fact, it would be in the larger public interest to disclose the identity of individuals facing CBI/ Vigilance enquires so as to create an environment against corruption in public life. In this view of the matter, the order of the CPIO is set-aside and he is hereby directed to disclose the requested information. The information will consist of the names of the officers and the ranks to which they were promoted despite CBI / Vigilance cases pending against them. This information will be disclosed in 04 weeks time, free of cost.

File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/004231

6. This is yet another appeal filed by the appellant. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 5.3.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:-

"1. Please provide the information of how much expense was incurred by HPCL for arranging the visit o Shri Prem Kumar, under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi from 26.7.2008 till 29.7.2008 on his stay, Transportation by for Ikon, Hotel stay at Shirdi and under which character of expense / activity it has been charged.
2. Please provide the information of how many officers have been recruited from RGIPT (Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology), Rae Bareili, what salary package has been offered to them, also provide the copy of Ministry / or any other office's directive received from MOP&MG in this regard."

7. This was responded to by Chief Manager, HR (CPIO) vide letter dated 30.3.2011, in which the requested information was denied under clauses (e) & (j) of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant had filed first appeal. During the hearing, the appellant submits that no order whatsoever has been passed by the AA in this connection. Hence, the present appeal.

8. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellant has sought clear and categorical information limited to a specified time frame. Denial of information by the CPIO can not be justified under the provisions of the RTI Act. If HPCL has spent any money on the visit of Shri Prem Kumar, Under Secretary, this falls in public domain and warrants disclosure. Similarly, if HPCL has recruited any officers from RGIPT w.e.f. 1.1.2008, this information also falls in public domain and warrants disclosure. Thus, the decision of the CPIO is not sustainable in law and is set-aside and he is hereby directed to disclose para-wise information to the appellant in 04 weeks time.

9. The appellant has strongly contended that the CPIO has violated the provisions of the RTI Act in deliberately and willfully refusing to disclose information requested for him in above said two RTI applications. This has compelled him to visit Delhi all the way from Mumbai at personal cost. He has spent Rs. 4000/- on to and fro train tickets and another Rs. 1000/- on taxi fare. If the CPIO had decided the cases correctly in the frame work of law, his visit to Delhi would have been unnecessary. He, therefore, contends that compensation of Rs. 5000/- may be paid to him u/s 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act.

10. I find merit in the appellant's submission and award compensation of Rs. 5000/- to him. Shri Pushp Joshi, Executive Director, HRD, is hereby directed to remit an amount of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant through Demand Draft in 05 weeks time under intimation to this Commission.

11. Before parting with this matter I would like to observe that the AA has not passed any orders whatsoever on the appeals filed before him. It is not the first time that the AA of HPCL has failed to discharge his duties under the RTI Act. Hence, a copy of these proceedings may be sent to Shri S. Roychoudhury, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HPCL, to advise the designated Appellate Authority to discharge his functions under the RTI Act with promptitude and diligence.

Sd/-

(M.L. Sharma) Central 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.

(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties

1. The Chief Manger-HR& CPIO HPCL, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, P. B. No. 11041, Mumbai-400020

2. Shri S. Roychoudhury Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HPCL, Petroleum House-17, Jamshedji Tata Raod, Mumbai-400020

3. Shri R P Srivastava 304, AUM SAI, Sec-7, Kharghark, Navi Mumbai-410210