Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Ongc Videsh Limited (Ovl) on 23 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
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/ONGVL/A/2022/666205.
Shri SAMIR SARDANA. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
ONGC Videsh Limited.
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2024
Date of Decision : 20.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.09.2022
PIO replied on : 21.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 27.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 07.12.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"CBI • PIO to state whether the preliminary enquiry initiated by CBI on OVL w.r.t the Mozambique Gas field and Videocon role in the same, has been concluded • PIO to state if any FIR has been filed on named and unnamed persons in OVL by the CBI in the last 10 years, providing the CBI FIR number and the names of the OVL staff named therein • PIO to state if any Chargesheet has been filed on OVL staff by the CBI in the last 10 years, providing the CBI Chargesheet number and the names of the OVL staff named therein FX options • PIO to state the Profits and or losses REALISED , w.r.t the FX options (for EACH currency) traded by OVL, in each of the last 3 years • PIO to state the names of the FX brokers with whom OVL traded the FX options • PIO to state the Profits and or losses REALISED , w.r.t the FX options (for all currencies) traded by OVL SUBSIDIARIES, in each of the last 3 years • PIO to state the names of the FX brokers with whom OVL SUBSIDIARIES, traded the FX options Etc."Page 1 of 5
The CPIO, Chief manager(HR), ONGC Videsh Limited vide letter dated 21.10.2022 replied as under:-
"Please refer to the four RTI applications sent vide your email dated 02.08.2022 followed by the hard copy along with I.P.O No. 158903,158904,158905 and 158906 which was received in this Office on 05.08.2022.
A total number of around 119 RTI questions covering different areas and subject matters with respect to ONGC Videsh has been asked along with supporting documents. The collating of the above requested information along with various reports and documents requires much more time considering that large volume of information on multiple and diverse subjects has been requested and thus requires considerable time and efforts for assimilation by different departments who are the custodian of these information under respective subject areas. As ONGC Videsh is still under the process of compiling the information and may take at least another month, the information shall be provided latest by 15.10.2022."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 07.12.2022 provided pointwise reply as under:-
"Response of OVL to the Appeal-The Appellant/Querist has incorrectly, without giving any basis or reason, stated that the information provided is false, the said information is correct and OVL reiterates its stand that there is no documents / information with the CPIO which evinces that there is any enquiry initiated by CBI, FIR filed by CBI in last 10 years, or any charge sheet, in this regard.
Response of OVL to the Appeal - The Appellant/Querist has incorrectly, without giving any basis or reason, stated that the information provided is false, the said information is correct and OVL reiterate its stand that there is no documents / information with the CPIO which evinces that there is any enquiry initiated by CBI, FIR filed by CBI in last 10 years, or any charge sheet, in this regard. Etc."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 22.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
REPLYTO GROUND NO. I It has been consistent stand of ONGC Videsh Limited that there are no documents or information with the CPIO which evince that there is any inquiry initiated by CBI, FIR filed by CBI in last l0 yean or any charge sheet in tris regard. Further, Appellant/Complainant's reliance on newspaper reports is misplaced and do not lend any credence to his hlse imputations and accusations.
REPLYTO GROUND NO.2 ONGC Videsh Limited had already replied that CAG audit reports are available in the public domain on the CAG portal "https://cag.gov.inf. Since CAG is also a public authority and the audit reports so generated of the government Page 2 of 5 department can be sought directly from CAG. The CAG audit reports, even post 2011, are available in the public domain. The Appellant/Complainant has not made any effort to go through the same. Screenshots of some of the year reports, post-201l are annexed as Annexure- A (colly).
REPLYTO GROUND NO.3 The information 8s sought by Appellant/Complainant cannot be shared as being exempted under section 8 (l)(j) of The RTI Act 2005 which is reproduced herein below:-
8. (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen-
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause warranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any Person.
Further, this Ld. Commission in Second Appeal titled as "A K Banerjee vs The CPIO, the Chief Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Vadodara Zone" has held that the "Commission also agreed with the stand taken by the FAA that ODI list is highly confidential. Therefore, the disclosure of any kind of information would therefore defeat the very purpose of surveillance which is conducted through the established procedure of ODI list'.
REPLYTO GROI.'}ID NO.4 The Ground No. 4 is frivolous. The assertions raised by the Appellant/Complainant under Ground No. 4 have been raised by him for the first time. Moreover, the Ground No. 4 is merc narration of some, alleged, factual statement. Further no such information was sought by the Appellant/Complainant in the original application. Also herein, it is settled principle that under the garb of Appeal the Appellant/Complainant cannot widen the scope of his RTI queries at the Appeal stage. Without prejudice to the same, ONGC Videsh limited would like to reiterate that it had been uniformly stating that there are no documents or information with the CPIO which evince that there is any inquiry initiated by CBl, FIR filed by CBI in last l0 years or any charge sheet in this regard. Further CAG audit reports are available in the public domain on the CAG portal 'https://cag.gov.in/". Since CAC is also a public authority and the audit reports so generated of the government department can be sought directly from CAG.
REPLY TO GROUND NO. 5 The Ground No.5 raised by the Appellant/Complainant is a figment of his imagination. ONGC Videsh Limited is one of the most prestigious PSUs of the Government of India adhering to standards of proficiency and principles of law. ONGC Page 3 of 5 Videsh Limited has never claimed to be exempted from standards of oversight, transparency and accountability.
REPLYTO GROUND NO.6 The Ground No.6 raised by the Appellant/Complainant is vexatious. The RTI Ac! 2005 is being followed at ONGC Videsh Limited in its true sense and spirit. It has been a constant endeavour of ONGC Videsh Limited to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act 2005 to obtain information. It becomes significant to mention that various judicial pronouncements have held that this beneficial Act is being used misused by various individuals and to the knowledge of all, the Appellant/Complainant appears to be one of them. Various pronouncements of this Ld. Commission against the Appellant/Complainant can also be produced to substantiate the same wherein he has been admonished for his mis-adventures.
REPLYTO GROUND NO.8 It is vehemently denied that ONGC Videsh Limited has flouted the basic norms of natural justice by not following the principles of natural justice. ONGC Videsh Limited is a law abiding entity and all the principles of law have been strictly adhered to by ONGC Videsh Limited in dispensing the applications of Appellant/Complainant.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Satyendra Kumar, CPIO/ONGC- Videsh Ltd The Respondent reiterated the averment made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. He stated that a point-wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant. He averred that CAG audit reports are available in the public domain on the CAG porta Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no Page 4 of 5 further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)