Central Information Commission
Hukmat Tarachand Bhojwani vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 12 May, 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/2018/160021-BJ
Mr. Hukmat Tarachand Bhojwani
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Chief General Manager (IS),
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing Division,
Western Region, Indian Oil Bhavan BKC,
Plot C-33, G-Block Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (East) Mumbai 400051
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.05.2020
Date of Decision : 12.05.2020
Date of RTI application 09.04.2018
CPIO's response 10.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 02.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 01.08.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 03.10.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified copy of set of tender documents submitted to IOCL by the other Directors of Firm M/s Blue Oceans Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham, for bidding against the above referred Tenders floated by IOCL, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.05.2018, provided a suitable response to the Appellant while denying information under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 01.08.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 5
Appellant: Mr. Hukmat Tarachand Bhojwani through WhatsApp;
Respondent: Ms. Sati Rajendran, CPIO through WhatsApp;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought regarding allegedly forged signatures by his partner on the Directorship documents and the e-tender dealt with by IOCL had not been furnished satisfactorily. He acknowledged the receipt of the replies and the written submission by the Respondent. It was also informed that the subject matter was under adjudication at Gandhidham Court, Gujarat. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 04.05.2020 wherein it was submitted that he is out of India and sincerely expresses his inability to attend the hearing or nominate his proxy and therefore, it was requested to do the justice in the matter and to direct the Respondent to furnish the information as sought in the RTI application. Moreover, IOCL had lied by stating that the information called for was not available in soft copy. The fact remains that the information sought was available with them in Soft copy as it pertained to submission of e- Tender only. The IOCL had also agreed in writing that documents could be inspected in person vide their communications dt.10.05.18, 11.06.18 & 28.06.18. Furthermore, if the documents available with IOCL in soft form are permitted for inspection then how denial could be made to provide the same in CD Format despite charges were remitted for CD. It was further submitted that another Director of his firm i.e. Shri Dushyant Rameshbhai Patel has submitted the Tender in IOCL without his knowledge and by putting his forged signatures. He had also dishonestly, criminally and unlawfully, had taken the possession of the Assets of the Company M/s. Blue Ocean Sea Transport Limited and now has formed another Company of his own viz. M/s. Gujarat Mariners, Gandhidham. Furthermore, it was submitted that he had already submitted to IOCL a Master data of the Company proving his Director-ship in the firm. Since Shri Dushyant Rameshbhai Patel had resentfully cheated him by putting his forged signatures everywhere. He was sure that he could only be the person, who was in collusion and connivance with IOCL with mala fide intentions, who is preventing IOCL to provide information in soft form. He had given his consent for adjudication of the case based on his written submissions and relevant papers attached. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO / FAA as also its written submission a copy of which was endorsed to the Appellant. It was stated that the e-link of the tender documents was available on its website that could be accessed by the participants to the tender. Inspection of the said documents was also offered so that the specific details could be culled out by the Appellant out of the host of documents filed at the time of submitting the tender application. The Appellant expressed its inability to depute a representative for the same and desired a softcopy. It was abundantly clear that this was a matter of private dispute and no police complaint had been lodged so far. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated Nil wherein while reiterating the background of the case, it was submitted that the Appellant had made further correspondence with functional department and the Respondent to provide the documents in CD Form, stating his inability to travel due to ill health and being a senior citizen. The replies were given stating that the documents are in scattered form and compilation of these documents and preparation of CD will disproportionately divert their resources and advised him to carry out the inspection at the earliest. It was also submitted that the Appellant is one of the Directors of the firm Blue Ocean Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant is seeking information through RTI about documents submitted by the other Directors of Blue Ocean Pvt. Ltd. while participating in the bid referred above by IOCL. This information could be obtained by any of the Directors of the firm by logging into the e-Page 2 of 5
tender site-NIC portal, which is a Government of India site. It was also understood that the Directors have taken legal course to sort out the disputes in the firm (Blue Ocean Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham). Hence the RTI is being used not for getting any information of IOCL but to obtain their own firm's documents submitted by other Directors of the firm which is available on NIC portal.
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."
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."
Page 3 of 57. "....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."
The 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.Page 4 of 5
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 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.
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 judicial forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission) 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) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 12.05.2020 Page 5 of 5