Central Information Commission
Mohammed Salim vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 12 March, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/149235-BJ
Mr. Mohammed Salim
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & CGM (HR) & PIO
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Refineries Division: Scope Complex
Core - 2, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110003
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2020
Date of Decision : 12.03.2020
Date of RTI application 02.02.2018
CPIO's response 28.03.2018
Date of the First Appeal 17.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 09.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.08.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the name of the company which was awarded the contract in pursuance of Notice inviting Tender No. dated April 24, 2010 for the Coke Handling Plant (0245) of IOCL, Paradip Refinery Project for Bulk Material Handling System and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 28.03.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.05.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Madappa Appellant's representative, through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Ranjit Singh, Project Manager and Mr. Mayank Deep, Sr. Law Officer;Page 1 of 5
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that false and misleading information was provided by the CPIO/FAA. A reference was also drawn to an email dated 12 January, 2011 in respect of approval of vendors for various equipments for Coke Handling System, in support of his contention. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO/FAA and further stated that the information requested for by the Appellant pertained to a project executed by IOCL around 15 years ago and that no documents regarding the specific query about the project was available with them. Furthermore, it was submitted that the RTI application of the Applicant was forwarded to the contractor (M/s Bengal Tools Limited now BTL EPC Limited) for their response. Vide email dated 27.03.2018, the contractor had informed that they had not engaged agencies (Back-up Consultant / Sub-Contractors) for the purpose of Design-Engineering. Further, the contractor had also informed that they had designed the system which got vetted & approved by TEIPL (Project Management Consultant of IOCL) upon which detailed engineering was carried out by BTL only and for completion of the project, there were requirements for buying out certain critical items such as motors to fasteners, conveyor belt to sprinkler nozzle which was done after the approval of TEIPL. The Appellant's representative contested the averments of the Respondent and submitted that the contract executed was not 15 years old and that the information sought should have been provided to the Appellant. On being queried by the Commission regarding any larger public interest involved in disclosure of the information, no cogent reply was offered by the Appellant's representative who further submitted that his client is apprehensive about the misuse of technology by the Company. The Appellant's representative consistently maintained that false and evasive reply was provided by the CPIO/FAA. On being further enquired by the Commission whether any complaint had been lodged with the CVO/appropriate authority with regard to the allegations made, the Appellant's representative replied in the affirmative and further submitted that the CVO had rejected the application based on the ground that the same was grievance related matter.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 03.03.2020 wherein it was submitted that Toyo Engineering India Limited (the engineering consultants engaged by IOCL for the Coke Handling Plant at its Paradip Refinery Project) vide email dated January 12, 2011 to Bengal Tools Limited had approved Macmet India Limited as the backup Consultant/Sub Contractor/Vendor of Pipe Conveyor for 'BTL' in the instant project. A copy of the said email dated January, 12, 2011 by Toyo Engineering India Limited to 'BTL' was annexed for kind reference.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 06.03.2020 wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, reply/order of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the Appellant in his 2nd Appeal had alleged that he was in possession of certain documents (Letter of Intent & Purchase Order) which indicate that BTL (contractor) had hired sub-contractor/agent for completion of the project. In this regard, it was informed that the documents submitted by the Appellant did not indicate appointment of any agency/sub- contractor. The documents just indicate that the Purchase Order was issued by BTL with consent of TEIPL (IOCL's PMC) to M/s Macmet (I) Limited (Sub-Vendor) for supply of pipe conveyor which was one of the certain critical items. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the instant Appeal filed by the Appellant and grant any other relief to the Respondent as the Commission may deem fit.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:Page 2 of 5
"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."
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."
Page 3 of 5The 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."
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 Page 4 of 5 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.
The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum within the Organization. The Respondent was however, advised to endorse a copy of their written submission dated 06.03.2020 sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 12.03.2020 Page 5 of 5