Central Information Commission
Adarsh Mani vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 24 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/127868 +
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/134439 +
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/139602 +
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/143662 +
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/145771 +
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/150376
Adarsh Mani ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division, U.P. State
Office-1, RTI Cell, Indian Oil Bhavan,
TC 39-V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow-226010, Uttar Pradesh ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/11/2022
Date of Decision : 23/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The instant Complaints have been clubbed together for decision as these
are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
File no. RTI CPIO's First Appeal FAA's order Complaint
Application reply dated dated dated dated
1
dated
127868 16/10/2020 17/11/2020 Not on record Not on record 06/07/2021
134439 06/07/2021 05/08/2021 Not on record Not on record 16/07/2021
139602 13/07/2021 24/08/2021 Not on record Not on record 13/09/2021
143662 08/08/2021 10/09/2021 Not on record Not on record 04/10/2021
145771 16/08/2021 23/09/2021 Not on record Not on record 18/10/2021
150376 16/10/2021 03/11/2021 Not on record Not on record 20/11/2021
CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/127868
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2020 seeking the following information:
"Please take a Reference of my application form No. 15455380177456 for award of RO dealership at Km stone No. 24 to 28 on SH-75 District SIDDHARTH NAGAR under SC category Advertised on 25-Nov-2018. In this connection, kindly arrange to provide undernoted information's on the basis of IOCL and Govt of India (Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas) Instructions, Circulars, rules & Regulations:-
1. What is the criteria of measuring the land from mid of the PWD Road to the boundary line of the land offered by the applicant for RO Dealership at Km stone No. 24 to 28 on SH-75 District SIDDHARTH NAGAR.
2. What is the actual periodicity to provide the signed copy of LEC report to candidate, in which applicant has made the signed along with the signature of the LEC members.
3. How many members are appointing the company for LEC.
4. Is there any provision, If the offered land is not meeting the laid down criteria observed by LEC during visit the site, then the applicant shall be given any opportunity to offer land or alternate land in the advertised location.
5. If the offered land is not meeting the laid down criteria observed by LEC during visit the site, then the company may reject the application and candidature without any intimation to the applicant.
6. If the offered land is not meeting the laid down criteria observed by LEC during visit the site, then what relaxation regarding opportunity to offer of land to the applicants belonging to SC / ST category have been provided by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas and Indian Oil Company Limited.2
7. If intimation regarding LEC report has not been sent to applicant by the company, then in this situation What is the criteria to issue LOI.
8. In case land is not found suitable by LEC, then what is the periodicity of intimation through SMS / e-mail to the candidate regarding rejection of the offered land and subsequent consideration of candidature along with group 3 applicant to all group holders.
9. Whether there is a provision to sent the intimation regarding Field Verification of Credentials to the selected candidate in advance by SMS / e- mail.
10. In which stage the intimation regarding Field Verification of Credentials are being sent to the selected candidate through SMS / e-mail.
11.ls there a provision of intimation and providing the opportunity to the selected candidate that in case land is not found suitable by LEC, then selection process will be continued and the candidate would be considered for selection along with group 3 applicants and what is the periodicity of such type intimation."
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 17.11.2020 stating as under:-
Point No. 1:- "In this regard, we would like to inform you that please refer guidelines of the PWD which can be downloaded from its own website i.e. www.uppwd,gov.in.
Point No. 2:- In this regard, we would like to inform you that LEC report is internal document for evaluation of land copy of which is not provided to the applicant. However, the contents of the report is shown to the applicant on the site and his signatures are taken on the report. Point No. 3:- There are two members in the committee who visit the site in case of the location is advertised on State Highway. Point No. 4:- To consider an alternate and the original land offered by the applicant should meet the applicable policies of the corporation. Point No. 5:- The intimation for rejection during LEC is communicated to the applicant through SMS/ email which was registered by the applicant during filling of form. In this regard, please refer brochure which- is available in the website www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in.
Point No. 6:- In this regard, we would like to inform you that there is no relaxation in case of land is rejected for SC/ST category. Point No. 7:- The LOI is issued if the offered land meets the criteria land down by the corporation. You may refer the Selection Brochure available on the website www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in.3
Point No. 8:- In this regard, please refer brochure which is available in the website www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in.
Point No. 9:- No. there is no provision to sent intimation by SMS/email h advance for FVC.
Point No. 10:- Letter for FVC is triggered once the land is found suitable at the LEC stage. In this regard, please refer brochure which is available in the website www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in.
Point No. 11:- In this regard, please refer brochure which is available in the website www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in."
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/134439 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.07.2021 seeking the following information:4
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 05.08.2021 stating as under:-5
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/139602 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2021 seeking the following information:6 7
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 24.08.2021 stating as under:-8
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/143662 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2021 seeking the following information:
"Please take a reference of IOCL, Gorakhpur Divisional Office mail dated-08.03.2021 through which I have been advised to update Bank's detail along with uploading of the supporting documents in the portal by 07.04.2021 but I have not been done my job within stipulated time. I, therefore, request to kindly arrange to provide the following information under right to information act-2005:
1. I have not been given any mandate nor provided the Bank account details to IOCL by 07.04.2021, then how have you refunded the ISD on without any notice.
2. Kindly inform that what was the source of capturing of my Bank account details by IOCL after the last date i.e. dated 07.04.2021.
3. What was the date and mode of Capturing of my Bank account details by IOCL.
4. Kindly inform that is it possible to capture the information or Bank details of any Applicant by IOCL even though he has not been selected for the RO dealership of IOCL but selected for RO dealership of other oil companies through www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in website?
5. Kindly inform that is it possible to capture the information or Bank details of any Applicant by IOCL even though he has been selected for the RO dealership for IOCL as well as selected for RO dealership of other oil companies through www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in website?
6. If any fraud is detected in my account by capturing the information of my bank details by IOCL, who will be the responsible for my losses."
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 10.09.2021 stating as under:-
Point No. 1:- "In view of the above, we would like to inform you that mandate were given by you against the mail sent to you on 08.03.2021. ISD refund 9 approved on 08.03.2021 and Bank details approved on 21.07.2021. Refund through fund transfer done on 04.08.2021 to SBI account No. 30761171580. Point No. 2:- In this regard, we would like to inform you that source of capturing of Bank account detail through cancelled cheque which was uploaded by you on the website: www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in.
Point No. 3:- Please refer our answer to query No.1 & 2. Point No. 4:- No Point No. 5:- No Point No. 6:- In your question, you are seeking an opinion of the PIO which is out side the purview the definition of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to information Act,2005. Hence, we are unable to comment on the same."
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/145771 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2021 seeking the following information:10
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 23.09.2021 stating as under:-11 12
CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/150376 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2021 seeking the following information:13
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 03.11.2021 stating as under:-
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed an instant set of complaint(s) with the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Uday Narayan, Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales) & Rep. of CPIO present through video-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Complaints have been heard together simultaneously along with six more Second Appeals/Complaints of the Complainant wherein the Complainant has narrated at length his grievance regarding cancellation of allotment of petrol pump area on his land without sharing the specific guidelines on the basis of his land was measured by LEC. In response to instant Complaints, no specific oral submissions as such have been tendered by the Complainant during hearing.
The Rep. of CPIO invited attention of the bench towards their consolidated written submission dated 22.11.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
" xxxxxxxx Comments with respect to Case No CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/127868 ........
27. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 06.07.2021 against query No. 1, 8, 10 and 11 of our reply ref. UPSO-I/Retail/RTI/R-2299/2287 dated 14 17,11.2020 with respect to his online RTI application references: 10CLD/R/E/20/01963, 10CLD/R/E/20/01964 dated 15.10.2020.
28. In view of the above, it is submitted that total 11 nos. queries have been raised by the appellant in the above online RTI and each and every query has been duly replied by us as per RTI Act.
29. In the query No. 1, he has sought copy of guidelines for measuring the plot No 365ka offered by the applicant for the RO location - Between KM stone No. 24 to 28 on SH-75, Dist. Siddharthnagar. The information with respect to availability of above PWD guidelines has been given to him. Path of the same has also been provided as mentioned in Point No. 22 above.
30. In the query No. 8, he has sought details for periodicity of intimation given to applicant through e-mail/ SMS for rejection of his land during LEC. It is inform to Hon'ble Commission that the information sought is readily available in the brochure dated 24.11.2018 as advised in our reply. Copy of concerned page of brochure is enclosed herewith for kind perusal (Annexure 6).
31. In the query No. 10, he has sought details of stage for intimation given to selected applicant for Field Verification of Credentials (PVC) sent through email/ SMS. Clear and Specific information has been provided to the applicant. Apart from this, it is also informed that the information as sought the applicant is readily available in the brochure dated 24.11.2018. Copy of concerned pages of brochure is enclosed herewith for kind perusal (Annexuren7 & 8).
32. In the query No. 11, he has sought details of opportunity for offer of land given to applicant in case of land is not found suitable during LEC. It is inform to Hon'ble Commission that the information sought is readily available in the brochure dated 24.11.2018 as advised in our reply. Copy of concerned page of brochure is enclosed herewith for kind perusal (Annexure 1).
33. That in view of the above, it is submitted that the all the information has been provided clearly with respect to point no 1, 8, 10 and 11 as stated above. The appellant has said in the second appeal that the information provided was wrong and misleading is not acceptable.
Comments with respect to Case No CIC/I0CLD/C/2021/134439.......
34. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 16.08.2021 against query No. 1 and 2 of our reply ref. UPS0-1/Retail/RTI/R-2471/2404 dated 05.08.2021 with respect to his RTI application dated 06.07.2021.
1535. In view of the above, it is submitted that total 08 nos. queries have been raised by the appellant in the above RTI and all the queries have been duly replied by us as per RTI Act.
36. In the query No. 1, he has sought details for date of submission of LEC report to Gorakhpur Divisional Office by LEC members for consideration. It is submitted that the LEC was done on 03.02.2020 and the final outcome of the report is done after receipt of report of PWD Dept:. on 24.09.2020. A letter with respect to cancellation of land has been sent to appellant on 05.10.2020. It is clear that the specific reply to the appellant has been provided by us.
37. In the query No. 2, the appellant has sought copy of entry of LEC report dated 03.02.2020 in certified register of LEC at Gorakhpur Divisional Office. In response to the same, we have replied that please refer our answer to query No. I because the LEC was not completely done on 03.02.2020 due to non receipt to PWD report on the land proposed by the appellant/ applicant. It is also inform to applicant that there was no any register maintained in the office due to LEC is the part of internal document of the corporation.
38. That in view of the above, it is submitted that the all the information has been provided clearly with respect to query no. 1 and 2 as stated above. The appellant has said in the second appeal that the information provided was wrong, incomplete and misleading is not acceptable.
E Comments with respect to Case No. CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/139602.........
39. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 13.09.2021 against query No. 12 our reply ref. UPS0-1/Retail/RTI/R-2474/2402 dated 24.08.2021 with respect to his RTI application dated 13.07.2021.
40. In view of the above, it is submitted that total 12 nos. queries have been raised by the appellant in the above RTI and all the queries have been duly replied by us as per RTI Act.
41. With respect to query No. 12, he has mentioned that while assessing the Petrol Pump Dealer Chayan Portal at 8.45 AM on 27.06.2021 the name of Sh. Arunesh Gupta was showing as selected and at 10.42 AM the on 09.07.2021 the name of Sh. Mahendra Pal was showing as selected at the same portal. In view of the same, it is sought that who was the Competent Authority of the Corporation to change the same. In response to the same, it is replied that the Divisional Head is the competent authority to change above. It is further submitted that the change of selection of the applicant in the portal is the 16 part of selection process. Hence, the date cannot be provided. The details of whole case are given above.
42. That in view of the above, it is submitted that the all the information has been provided clearly with respect to query no. 12 as stated above. The appellant has said in the second appeal that the information provided was wrong, incomplete and misleading is not acceptable.
43. It is appealed by the appellant that the information was provided after 17 days of due d Ate. In this regard, we would like to inform Hon'ble Commission that the RTI application dated 13.07.2021 was received in our office on 15.07.2021 and due date for the reply was 15.08.2021. Due to some urgent issues and huge numbers of RTI applications submitted by the applicant and his father and one Smt. Gayatri Devi as already stated above, the reply was given to applicant after 9 days i.e. on 24.08.2021 of due date not after 17 days. It was already accepted in the end of the RTI reply that the 'delay in providing reply is regretted'.
Comments with respect to Case No CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/143662.......
44. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 04.10.2021 against all the queries of our reply ref. UPSO-I/Retail/RTI/2436 dated 10.09.2021 with respect to his RTI application dated 08.08:2021.
45. In view of the above, it is submitted that total 06 nos. queries have been raised by the appellant in the above RTI and all the queries have been duly replied by us as per RTI Act and as per the available record and information.
46. In the query Nos. 1, 2 & 3, the appellant has sought that I have not given any mandate nor provided the bank account details then how refunded the ISD amount without any notice and what was the source of capturing of my bank details. It is mentioned here that the ISD amount is Initial Security Deposit which is required to submit for selected candidate for RO dealership which is 10% of the total security deposit. In our response, we have replied that the mandate was given by you on 08.03.2021 and the fund transfer was done on 04.08.2021 to SBI account No. 30761171580. The details of capturing bank account were taken through cancelled cheque which was updated by the applicant in the portal.
47. In the query 4 and 5, the appellant has sought that is it possible to capture the Comments with respect to Case No. CIC/IOCLEC/2021/145771 dated 07.11.2022 at 12:05 PM
50. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 18.10.2021 against query Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8 of our reply ref. IPSO-I/Retail/RTI/2438 dated 23.09.2021 with respect to his RTI application dated 16.082021.
1751. That it is submitted that total 11 nos. queries have been raised by the appellant in the above RTI and all the queries have been duly replied by us as per RTI Act and as per the available record and information.
52. That in query No. I. and 4, the appellant has sought date, copy of letter and copy of slip of registered post sent to PWD department for want of clarification with respect to land proposed by the applicant. In this respect clear information has been provided to appellant that the letter has been sent to Executive Engineer, PWD, Itwa, Dist. Siddharth Nagar on 10.02.2020 for want of clarification. Copy of the letter was not provided as the said letter was internal and confidential document of the corporation which cannot be shared with anyone. The same was also replied in query No. 2 of this RTI reply.
53. That in query No. 5, the appellant has sought copy of clarification letter received from PWD department and its date and reference number. In this respect clear information has been provided to appellant that the letter dated 24.09.2020 sent by the PWD was received on 24.09.2020. It is also informed that since the letter issued by the PWD, hence copy of the said letter can be sought from the concerned department.
54. That in query No. 8, the appellant has sought details with respect of various information of land of operational Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) of the Corporation namely Mis Shrinath Ji Petroleum situated at Tilauli and Karahi Masjidiya Marg. That the name of the RO has been provided to the appellant as stated and information with respect to land was not provided as the land of the RO is commercial and commercial interest of the concerned dealers/corporation and as such may harm the competitive position of the 'third party/land owner and hence exemption for the same is available under Section 8(1)(d) under Right to Information Act, 2005.
55. That in view of the above, it is submitted that the all the information has been provided clearly for all the queries as stated above. The appellant has said in the qpirrind anneal that the information provided was wrong, incomplete and misleading 58. That it is submitted that: total 05 nos. queries have been raised by the appellant in the above RTI which wits not provided by us as the RTI applicant, his father and one Snit. Gayatri Devi are a regular information seeker with respect same locations and same issues as already stated in point No. 15 to 19 above.
59. That the appellant has sought copy of judgment with respect to Aditya Bandhopadhyay versus CBSE of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned such act of repeated RTIs on part of ICI applicant. It was mentioned in our reply ref. UPSO-I/Retail/RTI/2438 dated 23.09.2021 in the last four paras......"
18Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking information and in fact , it is about the Complainant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to cancellation of allotment of petrol pump in his favour based on the LEC report of IOCL and also clarifications in this regard from the Respondent's organization.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO adequately suffices the queries raised in the instant RTI Application(s) and the CPIO has further supplemented the original reply informing about the factual position in the matter through his latest written submission.
The Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter 19 of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matters.
However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the Commission hereby advises the Complainant to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add....."
In view of the above said point, the CPIO herein is hereby advised to provide a copy of his latest written submission along with the annexures free of cost to the Complainant within a reasonable time.
The Complaint (s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) 20 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 21