Raj Rani vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 13 April, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Raj Rani vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 13 April, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                            के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायतसं या / Complaint No. CIC/BPCLD/C/2020/679375

Mrs. Raj Rani                                     ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO                                                     ... ितवादी/Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Chandigarh Office, Tel
Bhawan, Plot No. 6A, Sec-19B,
Chandigarh

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 03-06-2020           FA     : 24-06-2020         SA     : 25-07-2020

CPIO : 24-06-2020          FAO : Not on Record         Hearing: 08-04-2022

                                  ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chandigarh. The complainant seeking information is as under:-

Page 1 of 5

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24-06-2020 had denied the information as sought by the applicant under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.Being dissatisfied with the same, the applicant has filed first appeal dated 24-06-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to her. No FAA order is placed on record. The complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Hearing:

3. The complainant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri R. K. Sharma, CPIO/ State Coordinator attended the hearing through video- conferencing.

Page 2 of 5

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 28.03.2022 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the then CPIO and submitted that vide their letter dated 24.06.2020, it has been informed to the applicant that "connection no. 3847 as mentioned in his RTI Application is not in the name of Mr. Babu Ram Singh. Hence, information is denied under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005."

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has sought information regarding a gas connection in the name of her deceased father-in-law. That the respondent has already informed the complainant that the details could not be furnished s the LPG connection no. 3847 is not in the name of Mr. Babu Ram Singh as per their BPCL records vide their letter dated 24.06.2020 well within prescribed time limits as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

7. The Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inChief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12- 12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.

Page 3 of 5

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.

37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."

8. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that the respondent has rightly denied the information sought in the instant RTI Application and their reply dated 24.06.2020 is in order. Prima facie, the adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated by the Commission while examining the complaint and there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.

9. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.



                                                                नीरजकु मारगु ा)
                                            Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु       ा
                                                                   सूचनाआयु )
                                         Information Commissioner (सू

                                                           दनांक / Date : 08-04-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)




                                                                           Page 4 of 5
 Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
      Chandigarh Office, Tel Bhawan, Plot No. 6A,
      Sec-19B, Chandigarh

2.    Mrs. Raj Rani




                                                    Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission