Central Information Commission
Kochurani Anthony vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 29 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157849-BJ+
CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157847-BJ+
CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157846-BJ+
CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157845-BJ
Ms. Kochurani Anthony
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
Dy. GM & CPIO,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Kochi Regional Office,
Seaport-Airport Road,
Irumpanam P.O., Kochi - 682309
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2020
Date of Decision : 29.07.2020
RTI - 1 File N. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157849-BJ
Date of RTI application 20.12.2017
CPIO's response 08.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 31.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.03.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.09.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on seven points regarding date of visit of Mr. M. Selvakumar, Senior Regional Manager, HPCL LPG Regional Office, Palghat to the HPCL LPG distributorship M/s Annas Gas Agency, Palarivattom/Vytilla to inspect the infrastructural facilities of the said distributorship post October, 2005; whether any HPCL official visited the aforementioned distributorship post 01.11.2005 and what is the name and designation of the official and the date of the visit, etc. Page 1 of 8 The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.02.2018, provided a point-wise information to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157847-BJ Date of RTI application 19.12.2017 CPIO's response 30.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal 30.01.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 28.03.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.09.2018 FACTS
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on eight points regarding the positions held by Mr. V. A. Yusuf, HPCL LPG distributor (M/s Bismi Gas Agencies, Kaloor, Kerala) in the various committees and assignments within HPCL, with the year of the posts held, ever since the commencement of the said LPG distributorship; the present position held in HPCL by Mr. Jacob Brain, former Regional Manager, HPCL LPG Regional Office, Palghat, with designation, office address and official contact number, etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 30.12.2017 stated that grievance handling was not part of the RTI mechanism and that no larger public interest was justified in the matter. It was also stated that there is a structured grievance mechanism in place to address distributorship operations related issues including being entitled to option of arbitration as per the clauses enshrined in the distributorship agreement entered into with the Corporation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157846-BJ Date of RTI application 16.12.2017 CPIO's response 30.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal 29.01.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 28.03.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.09.2018 FACTS
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on thirteen points regarding the data on the total number of domestic consumers holding HPCL distributor wise in the Ernakulam District, Kerala as on 30th June 2003 & 21st August 2005; copy of data on the record of the official visit/inspection of LPG distributorships in the HPCL Ernakulam sales area by Mr. Mahesh Rajagopalan, HPCL LPG sales officer between 01.05.2005 to 31.12.2005 inclusive of a) list of the LPG distributorships visited in the said area with the date of visit, place of location of distributorship and district situated with reason of visit b) name and designation of any other HPCL officer accompanying, etc. Page 2 of 8 The CPIO, vide letter dated 30.12.2017 stated that grievance handling was not part of the RTI mechanism and that no larger public interest was justified in the matter. It was also stated that there is a structured grievance mechanism in place to address distributorship operations related issues including being entitled to option of arbitration as per the clauses enshrined in the distributorship agreement entered into with the Corporation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/157845-BJ Date of RTI application 01.12.2017 CPIO's response 30.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal 25.01.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 28.03.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.09.2018 FACTS
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on fourteen points on whether it was part of the official procedure of HPCL for the LPG Bottling Plant to send telegrams to LPG distributorships to direct the uplift of LPG refill loads from its bottling plants; whether it was the official procedure of HPCL, for its LPG Regional Managers to inspect/visit the LPG distributorships under their area, alone and personally, unaccompanied by the concerned area Sales Officers/Managers; procedures maintained by HPCL for the visit of the LPG Regional Manager to its LPG distributorships in their areas and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 30.12.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.03.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. R. Anbuchezian, DGM & CPIO, Kochi LPG Region through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Gokul, Network Engineer NIC studio at Kochi confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated that the Appellant was their erstwhile dealer who was suspended by M/s HPCL for committing various irregularities in the conduct and operation of the dealership. The suspension order was challenged by the Appellant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No 8253 of 2006 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court in their favour granting the Appellant the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings with regard to her grievance on the order of suspension. However, the Appellant had not taken any steps whatsoever for grievance redressal when various options including arbitration were available to her but instead chose to file multiple RTI applications as a means to redress the grievance. While explaining that a timely response was provided to the Appellant in all the matters, the Respondent stated that the Appellant Page 3 of 8 had filed 10 RTI applications with more than 50 queries and sub-queries and its answering resulted in disproportionately diverting their meager resources.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 21.07.2020 wherein while explaining the background of the matter, the Respondent stated that the Appellant was appointed as the Distributor of HPCL for LPG at Cochin, Ernakulam District by virtue of a HO Gas (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) Dealership (Domestic and Commercial) Agreement dated 26.02.1996. In furtherance to the said appointment, Smt Kochurani Antony operated the said dealership in the name and style as M/s Annas Gas Agency from 26.12.1996 upto 22.08.2005 when she was suspended by HPCL for committing various irregularities in the conduct and operation of the dealership. Being aggrieved by the suspension order, she filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as WP (C) No 8253 of 2006 seeking to quash the aforesaid order of suspension. After due consideration and upon noting the existence of arbitration clause in the Dealership Agreement, the Hon'ble High Court closed the Writ Petition vide judgement dated 01.07.2016 leaving it open for Smt Kochurani Antony to initiate appropriate proceedings with regard to her grievance on the order of suspension. However, the Appellant had not taken any steps whatsoever for grievance redressal when various options including arbitration were available to her but instead chose the RTI Act as a means to grievance redressal by filing multiple RTI applications. While referring to the reply of the CPIO/ FAA, the Respondent stated that the Appellant had filed lengthy applications on many questions and sub-questions which were not logically connected to one another. In support of their contentions, the Respondent referred to the decisions of the Commission in CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/646004, 646670, 653078, 653116, 653819, 653283, 653520 and 653567 (Kirti Kumar Pal vs APFC/ CPIO, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors; decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajni Maindiratta vs Directorate of Education (North West-B) (WP (C) No 7911/2015) wherein it was stated that "though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless of witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."The Respondent also referred to the decision of the Commission in Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs CPIO, CBSE in CIC/CBSED/A/2018/629692 decided on 04.03.2020. It was further stated that the questions raised in the RTI application were not replied to since they did not come within the purview of the definition of "information" as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that most of the questions raised by the Appellant were interrogatory in nature eliciting the opinion of the Public Authority on certain events. In this context, a reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 dated 09.08.2011 in support of their contention. Thus, it was submitted that they had duly replied to the Appellant within the stipulated time period.
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:
Page 4 of 8"(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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification Page 5 of 8 because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The Commission further 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 6 of 8
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.
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate her claims further.
Page 7 of 8DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of her grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 29.07.2020
Page 8 of 8