Central Information Commission
Krishan Dev Gaur vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 12 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/PAESO/A/2022/625908 +
CIC/PAESO/A/2022/625911
Krishan Dev Gaur .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization,
C 2-IIIrd Floor, CGO Complex,
Kakkanad, Ernakulam-Kerala - 682037. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/09/2022
Date of Decision : 12/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decisions
as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application (s) filed on : 25/01/2022 & 10/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 23/02/2022 & 07/04/2022
First appeal (s) filed on : 27/02/2022 & 17/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 27/04/2022 & 28/04/2022
2nd Appeal (s)/Complaint dated : NIL
CIC/PAESO/A/2022/625908
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.01.2022 seeking the following information regarding permission granted to Mr. NS Sajar for storage of LPG cylinder, including inter alia:
"A. Has there been any application/request from Mr. NS Sajar to obtain a storage licence for increased capacity from 6000 KG to 8000 KG. If yes, when was the application/request made.
B. Kindly provide me the set of documents/drawings/approvals from Local authority and concerned department or any other required documents.
C. Prior to grant of License, was there any inspection carried out by your officials at Plot No R Sy No 950/1,2-950/1 of Thoppumbady Village Kochi. If yes, when was the Inspection carried out and what was the name of the Inspection Officer.
D. Kindly provide me the copy of the report and all supporting documents submitted by the inspection Officer in relation to this matter.
E. Any other documents/court orders/Tribunal order or any other recommendation letters suggesting you to issue such a license kindly provide me copy of the same.
F. Any other necessary document pertaining to this case."
The CPIO gave a pointwise reply to the appellant on 23.02.2022 stating as under:
A. Copy of application dated 20/07/2021 is enclosed as annexure 1. B. Copy of NOC and Drawing is enclosed as annexure 2 & 3. c. No inspection prior to grant of license was carried out. D. No information is available.
E. No information is available F. The information sought by you is not specific.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.02.2022. FAA's order dated 27.04.2022, directed the CPIO O/o the Dy. CCE, Ernakulam to furnish the requisite information to the appellant.2
CIC/PAESO/A/2022/625911 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.03.2022 seeking the following information regarding a memo issued by Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Chennai to Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam with No. G/Complaint/GCR dated 18.01.2022 on the basis of a letter issued by District collector Ernakulam:
"1. On the basis of this memo has the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam submitted any reply/clarification or report mentioning information regarding this case. If yes, kindly provide copies of all the replies and document submitted by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam in regards to this memo to The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives.
2. On the basis of this memo a letter was issued to CS Abeeb dated 07/02/2022 asking him to produce an NOC issued by Secretary Chellanam Grama Panchayath within 30 days.
a. With the Time limit now over has CS Abeeb submitted any reply on this letter b. Along with the reply has CS Abeeb submitted any NOC issued by Secretary Chellanam Grama Panchayath c. Has there been any Court/Tribunal order submitted by CS Abeeb with his reply on this letter.
3. As on 04/02/2022, as per the PESO website public domain section CS Abeeb had submitted an application for prior approval for amendment of License in form F a. What Amendment was requested by CS Abeeb b. Kindly provide copy of Application, Drawings, MAP, Approval, NOC, Permissions obtained and all documents attached by CS Abeeb along with his application.
4. As on 27/02/2022, as per the PESO website public domain section application for inspection of license in FORM F submitted by CS Abeeb was granted and was dispatched. Request you to kindly provide copy of the same.
5. On 20/10/2021 an explosives license No. G/SE/KL/06/291(G56377) was granted in FORM F to NS Sajar for Storage of LPG in cylinders at Plot No: R.Sy. No. 950/1-2- 951/1, Thoppumpady. Was there any inspection carried out before granting this License or after granting this license to confirm whether the Godown built was in accordance with the specifications as mentioned in the drawing submitted along 3 with the application for the obtaining the license and whether it satisfies all parameters of the explosive's rules. If yes kindly provide copy of inspection report and name of inspecting Officer.
6. Has there been any letter/notice/memo from the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives with regards to NS Sajar License No. (G56377) and CS Abeeb License No. (G25032). If yes kindly provide copy of the same along with a copy of the reply given on it."
The CPIO gave a pointwise reply to the appellant on 07.04.2022 stating as under:
Query No:1, 2(a),5 & 6 - Copy enclosed Query No. 2(b&c), 3(a&b) and 4 - No information is available Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2022. FAA's order dated 28.04.2022, disposed of the First Appeal stating as under:
(1) Your letter dated 16/04/2022 regarding issuance of NOC by Secretary of Gram Panchayat is replied by this office vide this office letter dated 27/04/2022.
(2) CIPO, O/o. Dy. CCE, Ernakulam is hereby directed to furnish information against your queries at Sr. No. 2(b)& (c), 3 (a) & (b) and 4 after obtaining consent from the licesee.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: S Saravana, Dy. Controller of Explosives & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that complete desired information in compliance with the FAA's order has not been provided to him till date. He further harped on the inaction/alleged corruption scams of Respondent Public Authority in issuing licenses to the above-mentioned LPG gas distributors without following proper norms of inspection, designs, clearances like getting NOCs from such firms which are causing damage to the society. He further 4 contested that since the information has been sought for in public interest; therefore, directions should be issued to the CPIO to provide complete information in compliance of FAA's order.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 05.09.2022 and submitted that all relevant available information in response to both the RTI Applications has already been furnished to the Appellant vide initial replies and since no additional information was available at their end therefore, no question of compliance to FAA's order arose. In rebuttal to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO further clarified that prior to 2016 there was no concept of getting NOCs from the LPG gas distributors and amendment was made thereafter. Thus, such allegation from the Appellant's side regarding issuance of license without accepting NOCs was untenable.
Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO further facilitated a detailed discussion on the investigation regarding the averred licenses and the multiple complaints received in this regard from the Appellant wherein out of RTI context, an opportunity of inspection was also offered to him.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Applications that the information sought by the Appellant about the license related records of the third party LPG gas distributors impinges on their privacy and is therefore hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary 5 proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Having observed as above, the order passed by the FAA's directing the CPIO to provide the relevant information to the Appellant after seeking consent of the concerned third party is untenable and is liable to be set aside.
However, the fact remains that the CPIO while ignoring the above said aspect has erred in providing the relevant records of a third party's personal information which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, without seeking the consent of the concerned third parties at the initial stage as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. Even if the CPIO intended to disclose the information, he should have sought for the consent of the concerned third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to disclose any third-party related information that stands exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Appellant of a larger public interest subsisting in the matter keeping in view of a catena of judgments of the superior Courts as under with respect to the aspect of larger public interest:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants 6 recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy.Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Moreover, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the alleged corruption in the Respondent Public Authority is purely a matter of grievance which is not 7 amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been 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 fora. 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."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was 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."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...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...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and hereby advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.8
Lastly, the attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add.
In view of the above said point, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of his written submission(s) dated 05.09.2022 free of cost to the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9