Central Information Commission
Ram Balak Singh vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 28 November, 2019
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.:- CIC/MOPNG/A/2018/133968-BJ+
CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/125129-BJ
Mr. Ram Balak Singh
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. CPIO
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Hindustan Bhawan, 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road
Mumbai - 400020
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.11.2019
Date of Decision : 28.11.2019
ORDER
RTI I: File No. CIC/MOPNG/A/2018/133968-BJ Date of RTI application 10.03.2018 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 19.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.05.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the certified copy of the order/instructions given by the Ministry to HPCL on the letter sent by S.O. (LPG) vide its letter dated 11.03.2017; the certified copy of Report/Inquiry Report submitted by HPCL consequent upon issuance of order/instructions by the Ministry and other issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response within the stipulated time frame, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Page 1 of 4
RTI II: File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/125129-BJ
Date of RTI application 22.01.2018
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 26.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.04.2018
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the certified copy of the Inspection Report conducted by the Inspecting Team on his Gas Godown and Ancestral Home, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response within the stipulated time frame, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ram Balak Singh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Nirmal Pegu, Under Secretary, MoP&NG and Mr. V. M. Chandra, CRM, HPCL;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that the information sought by him had not been furnished. He specifically desired a copy of the enquiry report submitted by HPCL after site inspection. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the Appellant had already been given a reply vide their letter dated 03.04.2018 and 07.05.2018 as also a copy of the letter addressed to Member of Parliament dated 01.01.2018 in the same matter. Nonetheless, the copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished. During the hearing, a reference was drawn to the decision of the Commission in a similar matter in Appeal No. CIC/ SH/A/2016/000879 & CIC/SH/A/2016/001021 dated 13th June, 2017 and CIC/SH/A/2015/000589 dated 23rd May, 2016, etc. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas) dated 25.11.2019 wherein it was submitted that the RTI application of the Appellant was responded by the CPIO vide letter dated 03.04.2018 and the First Appeal was also replied by the FAA of the Ministry vide letter dated 07.05.2018 (scanned copies were enclosed for reference).
The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Respondent (HPCL, Chief Regional Manager and CPIO, Gorakhpur LPG Region) dated 25.11.2019 wherein it was stated that the ED-LPG, HPCL, Mumbai disposed off the appeal vide order dated 11.04.2018 with a direction to the CPIO, HPCL Gorakhpur LPG Region to provide the information to the Appellant. Probably due to some problems related to postal service this letter dated 11-04-2018 from ED-LPG, HPCL, Mumbai was not delivered. It was further stated that after receiving a notice of hearing for Appeal No CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/125129 from the Commission, the CPIO, HPCL, Hindustan Bhawan, Mumbai along with the Notice had sent the letter dated 11.04.2018 from his record which had been received by them on 22.11.2019. Furthermore, it was submitted that the information sought vide application dated 22.01.2018 was not held by the Gorakhpur Regional Office hence as per 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 they had immediately transferred the application vide letter dated 25-11-2019 to CPIO- GM, LPG S/M HPCL, Mumbai for providing the information sought within the time frame.Page 2 of 4
The same was also communicated to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.11.2019. The Respondent thus apologized for the delay in transferring the application to other CPIO and providing the information to the Appellant.
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."
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 Page 3 of 4 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."
Furthermore, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints.
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
It was also noted that an identical matter was listed for hearing by the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/125129-BJ on 28.11.2019 and therefore both the parties requested for exemption from hearing being repetitive Appeals. The same was taken on record. Hence, this Appeal (CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/125129-BJ) was clubbed with the instant Appeal and decided.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a copy of the enquiry report submitted by HPCL to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. This decision stands applicable to both the Appeals listed above as agreed by both the parties.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 28.11.2019
Page 4 of 4