Central Information Commission
Saurabh Agrawal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 18 August, 2023
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/610523
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/611165
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/611218
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/611437
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/612333
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/612371
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/617141
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/617148
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/619398
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/615207
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/619403
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/621195
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/621199
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/627012
CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/626241
Shri Saurabh Agrawal ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
BPCL
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2023
Date of Decision : 18.08.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO Complaint
No. on received on
610523 22.01.2022 16.02.2022 18.02.2022 08.03.2022 17.02.2022
611165 28.01.2022 18.02.2022 22.02.2022 08.03.2022 22.02.2022
611218 23.01.2022 18.02.2022 22.02.2022 11.03.2022 22.02.2022
611437 29.01.2022 18.02.2022 23.02.2022 08.03.2022 23.02.2022
612333 15.11.2021 13.12.2021 28.02.2022 08.03.2022 28.02.2022
Page 1 of 15
612371 14.11.2021 13.12.2021 14.12.2021 30.12.2021 28.02.2022
617141 21.02.2022 22.03.2022 23.03.2022 20.04.2022 23.03.2022
617148 21.02.2022 22.03.2022 23.03.2022 20.04.2022 23.03.2022
619398 22.02.2022 23.03.2022 02.04.2022 21.04.2022 02.04.2022
615207 01.02.2022 03.03.2022 - - 14.03.2022
619403 22.02.2022 23.03.2022 02.04.2022 21.04.2022 02.04.2022
621195 12.03.2022 11.04.2022 11.04.2022 21.04.2022 11.04.2022
621199 22.03.2022 11.04.2022 11.04.2022 21.04.2022 11.04.2022
627012 06.04.2022 26.04.2022 14.05.2022 06.06.2022 14.05.2022
626241 09.04.2022 02.05.2022 10.05.2022 31.05.2022 10.05.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/610523 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.01.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly provide the date and time to inspect documents and records all together with taking notes, extracts and certified copies of documents and records (if any) regarding issuance, re issuance and replacement (with specific reasons thereto) of em locks inducted under contract tank tankers from January 2020 to December 2021 at BPCL Mathura Installation under section 2(j) of RTI Act 2005."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 16.02.2022 replied as under:-
"The information requested by you is confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2022. The FAA/Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 08.03.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal is denied as the same is confidential in nature and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005."
(2) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/611165 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.01.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly furnish the complete and detailed information including file noting, correspondences and other related documents with respect to availability and efficient, Page 2 of 15 smooth or proper function/ operation of water recycling plant and water treatment plant at BPCL Mathura Installation for the period January 2017 to January 2022."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 18.02.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 At BPCL Mathura Installation facilities for recycling water for tank lorry calibration is available at the location. Water treatment plant is not available at BPCL Mathura Installation. The records of the same cannot be shared as same is internal/ commercial confidence and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1)
(d) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.02.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 08.03.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 18.02.2022 and there is no query for which the information has not been provided except copy of documents related to recycling of water which being commercial confidence are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d)& (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
(3) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/611218 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.01.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly furnish the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memos, circulars, orders, reports, correspondences and other related documents regarding knowledge sharing, trainings sessions and other related platforms provided to the transport vendor at Mathura BPCL through which they can measure the accuracy and correctness of the operations of EM locks by checking and verifying the EM locks inducted in their Tank tankers operating at BPCL Mathura Installation."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 18.02.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 BPCL Mathura Installation conducts training programme with regard to locking mechanism etc. with transporters as well as their representatives from time to time as per laid down procedures as given by the company. The documentation of the same cannot be shared as these are internal/confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005."Page 3 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.02.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 11.03.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 18.02.2022 and there is no query for which the information has not been provided except copy of internal documents which are confidential in nature and does not satisfy larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005."
(4) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/611437 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly furnish the details regarding the Standard Operating Procedure (along with the names of responsible official and signing authorities at each step of followed SOP) at BPCL Mathura Installation for Tank Tankers engaged in transportation of HSD and MS by road from the entry of BPCL Mathura Installation Gate to the exit from BPCL Mathura Installation Gate."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 18.02.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 The information requested by you is internal / commercial confidence and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1)(d)& (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 08.03.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal cannot be provided as the same is of commercial confidence and exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d)& (j) of the RTI Act 2005."Page 4 of 15
(5) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/612333 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021seeking information on the following points:-
"Kindly furnish the details of issuance, re-issuance and replacement of em locks, inducted on the Tank Trucks under the contract with BPCL for transportation of petroleum products, with the Tank Truck numbers, name of the firm of the transporter vendor and the valid reason incidental thereto for the process of an issuance, re-issuance and replacement of em locks by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited under contract Tank Trucks at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Mathura Installation for the period starting January 2018 and ending November 2021."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 13.12.2021 replied as under:-
"Point no. 1 The information sought is of reliable nature and is not in the interest of the larger public, hence we refuse to provide the same under Section 8 (1) (d) of the Right to Information Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 08.03.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal being of commercial confidence, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005."
(6) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/612371 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.11.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
"Kindly furnish the details of em locks (inducted in tank trucks for transportation of petroleum product under contact) replaced, issued and reissued with all details of vehicle number and vendor name and the reason associated for replacement, issuance and re issuance of em locks at BPCL Mathura Installation for the period starting from January 2019 and ending November 2021."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 13.12.2021 replied as under:-
"Point no. 1 The information sought is of reliable nature and is not in the interest of the larger public, hence we refuse to provide the same under Section 8 (1) (d) of the Right to Information Act 2005."Page 5 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2021. The FAA/ Head (Retail), North District vide order dated 30.12.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal being of commercial confidence, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 the same is therefore denied."
(7) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/617141 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005, the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memos, circulars, orders, reports, emails, correspondences and other related documents regarding the average lead and waiting time between the two consecutive loads by the tank tankers under the contract at BPCL Mathura Installation for transportation of HSD/ MS by road transport for the month of January 2021 and January 2022. Please provide the detailed information vendor wise."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 22.03.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 The information requested by you is of commercial confidence and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.03.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 20.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal cannot be provided as the same is of commercial confidence which has no relationship to any public activity and is thus exempted under Section 8 (1)(d)& (j) of the RTI Act 2005."Page 6 of 15
(8) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/617148 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005, the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memo, circulars, orders, reports, emails, correspondences and other related documents with respect to the reporting of under contract Tank Tankers used for transportation of MS/ HSD at BPCL Mathura Installation chronologically with the time from 11 February 2022 to 21 February 2022 and details of loads assigned and dispatched to the same reported vehicles respectively for the period between 11 February 2022 to 21 February 2022."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 22.03.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 The information requested by you is of commercial confidence and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.03.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 20.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal cannot be provided as the same is of commercial confidence which has no relationship to any public activity and is thus exempted under Section 8 (1)(d)& (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
(9) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/619398 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005, the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memos, circulars, orders, reports, emails, correspondences and other related documents with respect to the rates of freight by which payment to the vendor operating Tank Tankers with loading capacity of 29 KL under Tender No. BPCL/ NR/ POL/ BULK/ 2016-2021 Mathura had been calculated and paid off between the period 01.04.2021 to 31.01.2022."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 23.03.2022 replied as under:-
"The information requested by you is of commercial confidence and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005."Page 7 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.04.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 21.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 22.03.2022 & 12.05.2022 and there is no query for which the information has not been provided. It is therefore requested to kindly dispose of the 2nd appeal filed by Sh Saurabh Agrawal & oblige"
(10) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/615207 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005 the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memos, circulars, orders, reports, emails, correspondences and other related documents with respect to the action taken on the officials (as named) of BPCL Mathura Installation against whom a complaint by email was made/ lodged by transport vendor on October 30th,2021 at 2.20 PM to Shri Jatinder Singh Kalsy and other higher officials for using unparliamentary words against the vendor transporter in presence of his representative and crew members."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 03.03.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 The matter has been investigated, no un-parliamentary words has been used by BPCL officer in presence of vendor's representative. The investigation report is confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(11) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/619403 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"Kindly furnish under the RTI ACT 2005, the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memos, circulars, orders, reports, emails, correspondences, tender documents extract and other related documents regarding the rates of freight payments for 29 KL capacity Tank Tankers, fixed and finalise after negotiation process of Page 8 of 15 tendering with transport vendors, with respect to Tender No. BPCL/NR/POL/ BULK/2016-2021 Mathura."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 23.03.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 The information requested by you is of commercial confidence and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.04.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 21.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 22.03.2022 & 12.05.2022 and there is no query for which the information has not been provided. It is therefore requested to kindly dispose of the 2nd appeal filed by Sh Saurabh Agrawal & oblige"
(12) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/621195 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
''Kindly furnish, under the RTI Act 2005, the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memos, circulars, orders, reports, emails, correspondences and other related documents including bills and vouchers with respect to the amount recovered from dealers regarding sub-lease of the EM Locks inducted on Tank Tankers transporting petroleum products at BPCL Mathura Installation for the period starting January 2017 to January 2022. Also furnish information with respect to the fixation of an amount regarding sub lease of EM Locks to dealers on per load basis, whether so calculated sub lease amount considers any appropriation of an amount subject to maintenance or sales after service management of EM locks.'' The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 11.04.2022 replied as under:- "Point No.1 The information requested by you is of commercial confidence and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 21.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Page 9 of 15 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal being of commercial confidence the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d)& (j) of the RTI Act 2005"
(13) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/621199 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2022 seeking information on the following point:-
"Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005, the complete and detailed information all together with file noting, memo, circulars, orders, reports, emails, correspondences, abstract and other related documents with respect to the agenda of the meeting, called at BPCL Mathura Installation on 08.03.2022 at 14.30 Hrs. Kindly, also furnish the copy of the attendance register having signature of the present transporters and officials."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 11.04.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 (A) National Safety Week celebration.
(B) Attendance of the meeting can not shared as this information is confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.04.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 21.04.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 14.05.2022 and there is no query for which the information has not been provided except the copy of attendance register of transporter meeting which is is confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hance denied under Section 8 (1)(d)of the RTI Act 2005."
(14) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/627012 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.04.2022 seeking information on the following point:-Page 10 of 15
"Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005 the complete and detailed information all together with the le nong, memos, circulars, records, orders, reports, emails, correspondences and other related documents with respect to the name and designation of responsible ocer who was authorized to operated and handled the prevailing computerized payment system to veried, authorize and paid the freight of 29 KL capacity of Tank Tankers operated under the Tender no. BPCL/NR/POL/BULK/2016-21/MATHURA for transportaon of Bulk POL Products from BPCL Mathura Installaon between the periods of June 2020 to February 2022."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 26.04.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 Freight payment is automated system and is same across BPCL. The file noting, memos, circulars, records, orders, reports, emails, correspondence and other related documents are internal confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 06.06.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 18.02.2022 and there is no query for which the information has not been provided except document for freight payment which is confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest hence exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005."
(15) CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/626241 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.04.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005 the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memos, circulars, records, orders, reports, emails, correspondences, certified copy of permissions and other related documents with respect to permitted quantity of water extraction per day at BPCL Mathura Installation and the purpose of its utilization between the period of January 2017 to March 2022."
The CPIO, BPCL, UP vide letter dated 02.05.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No.1 (A) The file noting, memos, circulars, records, orders, reports, emails, correspondence, certified copy of permissions and other related documents are internal documents which are confidential in nature and do not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005."Page 11 of 15
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2022. The FAA/ Head (Retail), Northern Region vide order dated 31.05.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Complainant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in his RTI Applications. He added that information sought in the aforementioned RTI Applications is neither of commercial confidence nor is personal in nature.
The Respondent represented by Shri Jitender Kalsi, DGM (U.P. State)/BPCL, participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Applications is very much exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act as the Complainant is seeking information of the other transporters disclosure of which would harm the competitive positions of third parties. He added that the Complainant was one of the transporters associated with BPCL/Mathura whose tank lorry was blacklisted due to involvement in malpractices. He further submitted that the Complainant has filed more than 100 RTI Applications in their office just to harass the officials.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vinit Chopra, CPIO (Retail), U.P., BPCL, vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and copy of the same has also been sent to the Complainant. The relevant extract is as under:
"It is kindly submitted that the information requested in the RTI Application of Sh Saurabh Agrawal has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 21.05.2022 & 21.07.2022 and there is no query for which the information has not been provided except copy of internal documents which are confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest hence exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d)of the RTI Act 2005."
Decision The aforementioned Complaints deal with similar subject matters and hence they are decided by a common order. Perusal of the records and keeping in view the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the aforementioned Complaints are filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause by the CPIO which the Commission is unable to conclude in the present instance. In a Complaint case filed u/s 18 of the Act, no further direction for disclosure of information can be made as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. Vs. State of Manipur and Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010) decided on 12.12.2011.
Page 12 of 15Before parting with the decision, this Commission wishes to note that these cases arose out of a personal dispute between the Complainant and the Respondent for which he has filed these fifteen Complaints before the Central Information Commission, seeking redressal of his grievance. This indicates a lack of bonafide on the part of the Complainant. Such repetitive and vexatious litigation results in wastage of precious time of the adjudicating authorities and also the public authority in question. It is owing to the frivolousness and wasteful nature of such litigation that the Courts have repeatedly and consistently been discouraging such litigation. Some important judicial pronouncements where the Courts have discussed this subject are as under:
i) Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries(AIR 1980 SC 946) whereby it has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
ii) The Apex Court had discussed the same issue in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of Page 13 of 15 publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
iii)The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] had observed as under:
"......... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied
iv) In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability............................. 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 Page 14 of 15 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..."
Emphasis supplied Filing a series of RTI applications and inundating the CPIOs with queries is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. This Commission being a creature of the RTI Act is duty bound to preserve the ethos propounded by the statute. The average time taken for a second appeal/ complaint to be heard in the Commission is more than a year. As rightly said, justice delayed is justice denied. Timely dispensation of justice is essential. A single information seeker cannot usurp a collective right to the detriment of all others having an identical right nor should a person be allowed to file indiscriminate and unchecked Second Appeals/Complaints so as to clog the system of adjudication itself to the disadvantage of others. It will lead to a colossal waste of time and resources of the Commission which has the obligation to cater to thousands of genuine information seekers facing hurdles. The means adopted by the Complainant of burdening the Public Authority with multiple RTI cases, unfortunately, only points to the ignorance of the Complainant about the spirit of the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaints which are dismissed accordingly.
वाई. के . िस हा) Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 15 of 15