Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.A G L Irudayaraj vs Bhel on 19 March, 2012

                          Central Information Commission
               Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, 
                       Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                      Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                            Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002112
                                                                         Dated: 19.03.2012

Name of Appellant                      :       Shri A.G.L. Irudayaraj

Name of Respondent                     :       Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Date of Hearing                        :       13.03.2012

                                           ORDER

Shri A.G.L. Irudayaraj, the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 22.8.2010 before the Commission against the respondent Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) for not providing information of his RTI-application dated 9.11.2009. The matter came up for hearing on 13.03.2012. The appellant was represented by Shri S. Balasubramanian, Advocate and the respondent were represented by Shri Satish Rao, AGM, Ms. Shreysi Singh, Executive (Law), Ms. Shilpi Sikka, Executive (Law) and Ms. Aditya Dutta, Executive (Law).

2. The appellant had filed an RTI-application dated 9.11.2009 seeking information on the following three queries - "(1) Whether BPE Guidelines dated 9.2.1971 and modified guidelines dated 5.5.1978, is in force or not; (2) Whether or not BPE guidelines dated 9.2.1971 and 5.5.1978 were followed for the period of 1970 to 1992; and (3) Pricing Policy, payment policy, marketing policy and tendering policy whether or not followed as per BPE guidelines dated 9.2.1971 and 5.5.1978 during the period between 1970 to 1992." The CPIO vide letter dated 11.12.2009 replied to the appellant as follows:

"Point No. 1- The request is in the nature of seeking opinion of CPIO with regard to validity of certain guidelines. Hence the request cannot be considered under the RTI Act; Point No. 2 - Considering the volume of transactions entered by BHEL every year, locating collecting and ascertaining information for the period of 1970 to 1992 will not be possible without diverting public resources disproportionately. Moreover the request is general in nature and also in the nature of seeking opinion 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002112 of CPIO with regard to certain guidelines; Point No. 3 - The request is general in nature and also in the nature of seeking opinion of CPIO with regard to certain guidelines. Applicant is at liberty to seek specific information and not information which is generic in nature. Moreover locating and collecting and ascertaining the information will involve disproportionately diverting public resources in view of the fact that BHEL had entered into innumerable contracts between the period 1970 to 1992."

3. However, not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 16.12.2009 before the FAA. The FAA (Appellate Committee) vide its order dated 3.7.2010, while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the information in respect of Point No. 2 and 3 of the appellant is not available with the CPIO in the form in which it has been sought and retrieving and compiling it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Company within the meaning of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.

4. During the hearing the respondent submit that the appellant has sought a query on the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) guidelines dated 9.2.1971 and 5.5.1978. The BPE is no more in existence. Most of the guidelines issued by BPE have been cancelled and deleted vide DEP OM No. 20(5)/95(GM) dated 10.12.1997. Modified guidelines on growth and development of Ancillary Industries by PSEs (BPE No. 34/MG/78-B dated 5.5.1978) has been cancelled and deleted vide item No. 689 of DPE Circular dated 10.12.1997. The respondent have entered into innumerable contracts during the period 9.2.71 to 5.5.78 and ascertaining the details is not possible without diverting the public resources disproportionately. The respondent have no written document such as pricing policy, payment policy, marketing policy etc. The purchase policy covers BPE guidelines issued from time to time. The appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and the same may be rejected. The representative of the appellant filed written submissions on behalf of the appellant, which has been perused by the Commission.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information sought by the appellant at Point No. 2 and 3 is not specific and is general in nature. It is not held by the respondent in the form it has been sought and would have to be retrieved and compiled by the respondent, which would divert the resources of the public authority disproportionately and therefore attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. On point No. 1 the requisite information has been provided to the appellant by respondent. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent.

The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

Shri A.G.L. Irudayaraj, Proprietor, M/s. Irudayaraj Industries, No. 32, Bishop Road, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli-620017 (TN) The CPIO, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirapalli-620014 (TN) The First Appellate Authority, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi-110049