Central Information Commission
Manoj Jain vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 6 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.(s):- CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/125007-BJ+
CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/139795-BJ
Mr. Manoj Jain
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO (Retail)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL)
Office Complex, Block (A), Gautam Nagar
Govindpura, Bhopal - 462023,
Madhya Pradesh
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.11.2019
Date of Decision : 06.11.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/125007-BJ Date of RTI application 21.02.2018 CPIO's response 05.03.2018 Date of the First Appeal 09.03.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 26.03.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.04.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the Khasra Number/ Survey Number of the Land where BPCL, Retail Outlet , M/s H.S. Road Carrier, Village Palda, Khandwa Road, Indore was situated and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.03.2018 provided a point wise response to the Appellant denying information on points 02 to 04 u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 26.03.2018 directed the CPIO to provide information on points 02 to 04 of the RTI application.
Page 1 of 9
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/139795-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.05.2018
CPIO's response 16.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 30.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 06.06.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.06.2018
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding certified copy of the letter of Tehsildar, Indore referred to in point no. 03 of the response of the CPIO (Retail) dated 27.04.2018 wherein it was mentioned that "a letter was received from the Tehsildar, Indore for the establishment of the Retail Outlet"; certified copy of the map approved by T&CP Indore for the said Retail Outlet; list of vehicles mentioned in the Retail Outlet application by the concerned applicant.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.05.2018 denied disclosure of information as per Section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.06.2018 while directing the CPIO to provide information on points 01 and 02 denied disclosure of information on point no. 03 u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Manoj Jain along with Mr. Bhuvan Deshmukh (Adv.) through VC; Respondent: Mr. Aditya Mathur, CPIO (Retail) through VC;
Since both the RTI applications pertained to seeking information regarding the allotment of dealership/ agency ship to M/s H.S. Road Carrier, the files are clubbed together and a common order passed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that while point no 01 of the RTI application (Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/125007-BJ) was replied, the information on the remaining points (02 to
05) was not disclosed. Similarly, no satisfactory information was provided with respect to the queries raised in the RTI application under consideration in CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/139795-BJ. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submissions and stated that with regard to point no. 02 of the RTI application (CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/125007-BJ), the verification of dimension of land offered under the khasra number was not done by BPCL and it was verified and checked by concerned revenue authorities as a part of grant of no-objection by District Magistrate for development of retail outlet. Regarding point no. 03, the information could be provided only by the office of concerned Tehsildar as the process of verification was carried out by them. Similarly on point no. 04 of RTI application, it was stated that BPCL relied on revenue documents submitted by Appellant in application form and did not verify the area/dimension of land offered. It was verified and checked by concerned revenue authorities. Similarly, with regard to CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/139795-BJ, the Respondent stated that the documents pertaining to the approval of the Tehsildar were not available with them and that the information which was held and available with them was already disclosed to the Appellant. The Appellant vehemently contested the aforementioned submissions and stated that the documents said to be in possession Page 2 of 9 with the revenue authorities/ tehsildar was not available with him and that the Respondent in compliance with the order of the FAA provided incorrect and misleading information to him.
The Appellant also alleged that the Respondent Public Authority resorted to flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of allotment while grating agencyship/ distributorship to M/s H.S. Road Carrier.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 25.10.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/125007-BJ) wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA it was stated that the Appellant was provided the information as per order of FAA vide letter dated 19.04.2018. On Point no. 02 of the RTI, the verification of dimension of land offered under the khasra number was not done by BPCL. It was verified and checked by concerned revenue authorities as a part of grant of no-objection by District Magistrate for development of retail outlet. On point no. 03 of the RTI application, the information sought could be provided only by office of concerned Tehsildar as the process of verification was carried out by them. On point no. 04 of RTI application, it was mentioned that BPCL relies on revenue documents submittted by Appellant in application form and does not verify the area/dimension of land offered. It was verified and checked by concerned revenue authorities. Thus, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the Appeal, filed by the Appellant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 25.10.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/139795-BJ) wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA it was stated that the Appellant had visited BPCL Indore Territory Office on 10.08.2018 where inspection was offered for the documents which did not fall under exempted category (third party personal information) and copies of documents were handed over to him. Thus, it was prayed to the Commission to dispose off the Appeal filed by the Appellant.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission without commenting on the antecedents/ intention of the Appellant for seeking the information observed that the issues raised by the Appellant pertained to allotment of distributorship/ agency ship to an entity which was engaged in a public function pertaining to supply of fuel and natural gas which was a matter of larger public interest. Hence, all the information regarding the allotment of distributorship/ agency ship except personal information of the distributor should be permitted to be disclosed to the information seeker. In this context, the Commission referred to a similar matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Arti Devi vs. CIC and Ors Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21397/ 2011 dated 25.09.2012 wherein while deciding an RTI application seeking a copy of the application form submitted by one Smt. Vijaya Mishra for the allotment of LPG distributorship at Tamkuhiraj, Dist. Kushinagar, and income certificate of Smt. Vijaya Mishra's and income certificate of Dr. Ramesh Tiwari, the husband of Smt. Vijaya Mishra, it was held as under:
"18. The information which was required by the petitioner certainly had relationship with the public activity or interest of the Indian Oil Corporation as it had awarded the LPG distribution ship to Smt. Vijaya Mishra on the basis of the facts stated in the application.
19. The authorities were not justified in withholding such information by taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the orders dated 9th April, 2009, 9th July, 2009 and 13th May, 2010. They are, accordingly, set aside."Page 3 of 9
The Commission further observed that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."Page 4 of 9
In the context of disclosure of information relating to building plans of projects, the Commission refers to a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ferani Hotels Private Limited vs. the State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 9064-9065 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 32073-32074/ 2015) dated 27.09.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Court has directed to disclose the building plans, sanctioned plans, and details of commercial establishments in the public domain. The relevant observations made in the decision are mentioned hereunder:
"15.............In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, there is no mandate on an applicant to give any reason for requesting the information, i.e., anybody should be able to obtain the information as long as it is part of the public record of a public authority. Thus, even private documents submitted to public authorities may, under certain situations, form part of public record. In this behalf, we may usefully refer to Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defining 'public documents' as under:
74. Public documents - The following documents are public documents:-
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts--
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;"
(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
16. The only exemption from disclosure of information, of whatever nature, with the public authority is as per Sections 8 & 9 of the said Act. Thus, unless the information sought for falls under these provisions, it would be mandatory for the public authorities to disclose the information to an applicant."
23. The fate of purchase of land development and investments is a matter of public knowledge and debate. Any judicial pronouncement must squarely weigh in favour of the fullest disclosure, in this behalf........
24. In the aforesaid circumstances, even by a test of public interest, it can hardly be said that the same would not apply in matters of full disclosure of information of development plans to all and everyone.....
26. Similarly, clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act ex facie would have no relevance. There is no 'personal information' of which disclosure is sought. Further it cannot be said that it has no relation to public activity or interest, or that it is unwarranted, or there is an invasion of privacy. These are documents filed before public authorities, required to be put in public domain, by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act and the RERA, and involves a public element of making builders accountable to one and all......
Page 5 of 934. In the end, we would like to say that keeping in mind the provisions of RERA and their objective, the developer should mandatorily display at the site the sanction plan. The provision of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the RERA require the sanction plan/layout plans along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, to be displayed at the site or such other places, as may be specified by the Regulations made by the Authority. In our view, keeping in mind the ground reality of rampant violations and the consequences thereof, it is advisable to issue directions for display of such sanction plan/layout plans at the site, apart from any other manner provided by the Regulations made by the Authority. This aspect should be given appropriate publicity as part of enforcement of RERA"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. 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 recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non- performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the Page 6 of 9 potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
The Commission also observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"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. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:Page 7 of 9
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to disclose point-wise information to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order respecting the aforesaid judgments as also the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 and the larger public interest involved therein as also suo motu disclose such information on their website for the ease and convenience of the public at large.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
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: 06.11.2019
Page 8 of 9
Copy to:
1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6- Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.O. No. 688, Mumbai-400001 Page 9 of 9