Central Information Commission
Mrssrimathi A Radhi vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 30 October, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002709/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 30th October 2014
Date of decision : 30th October 2014
Name of the Appellant : Srimathi A. Radhi,
W/o Shri Arun Kumar, C/o Laxmi
Hardwards,, 6/1203D, Paramathy Road,
Opp. E.B. Station, Namakkal Post 637 001
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indian Oil Bhawan, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034 The Appellant was not present. Instead one Shri P. Kannan was present at the NIC Studio, Namakkal to represent her, along with an authorization letter from her for the purpose.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri R. Shankar, CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 27.5.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding filling order copy of 60 LPG trucks, mileage details and amount paid in each case, monthwise, for the period 1.1.2009 to 30.5.2013. The CPIO responded on 24.6.2013. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 19.8.2013. In his order dated 11.9.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 20.10.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 29.10.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the representative of the Appellant and the Respondents. The representative of the Appellant stated that the information sought by the Appellant has not been provided to her.
3. The Respondents submitted that Shri P. Kannan, who is a transporter, had earlier filed a complaint with the Respondents regarding operation of such trucks and was given information regarding the finding of the public authority concerning the complaint. They further submitted that the CPIO informed the Appellant that the trips / destinations of bullet trucks are planned by various loading sources and filling orders are issued by various uploading locations. Since the information sought by the Appellant was for a period of 53 months in respect of 62 trucks, it would be very voluminous and take considerable time and effort by the public authority to compile. The CPIO also stated that some of the information, regarding payments made, was personal information and covered by Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Respondents further submitted that the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The Respondents stated that all the four RTI applications have been filed from the same address.
4. The representative of the Appellant stated that he had earlier sought similar information in respect of 1200 vehicles and it was provided to him by the Respondents on 25.4.2013. He, therefore, prayed that the Respondents be directed to provide the information sought in this case also. The Respondents submitted that information was provided in that case because Shri P. Kannan, himself a transporter with an interest in the subject in question, had sought it. They, however, added that it had taken them considerable effort to compile the information in that case, resulting in disproportionate diversion of their resources. According to the Respondents, details of mileage done by trucks are now displayed at receiving stations.
5. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We note that none of the information sought by the Appellant is covered by Section 8 (1) (j), as payment made by the public authority in respect of various vehicles is not personal information of the vehicle owners. We also take note of the submission made by the Respondents regarding the voluminous nature of the information sought by the Appellant and the fact that its compilation would disproportionately divert their resources from their day to day work. At the same time, in the interest of transparency, the Appellant must be provided information at least for some period. In view of the foregoing, the Appellant may stipulate to the public authority in writing a period of two months as per her choice during 1.1.2012 to 30.5.2013. In the event of her doing so, the CPIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant in her RTI application, for the period of two months chosen by her, within thirty working days of receipt of the Appellant's communication mentioning the period of two months, under intimation to the Commission.
6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar