Central Information Commission
Mohit Yadav vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 15 July, 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/2018/613169-BJ+
CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/613170-BJ
Mr. Mohit Yadav
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Chief Manager (Business & Network Planning)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
State Office Delhi, Haryana, HP & UK
A - 5&6, Sector - 1, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301
2. CPIO
Chief General Manager (LPG)
DSG & CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division, Delhi & Haryana State Office
2nd Floor, World Trade Centre, Babar Road
New Delhi - 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.07.2019
Date of Decision : 15.07.2019
ORDER
RTI - I File No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/613169-BJ Date of RTI application 20.01.2018 CPIO's response 15.02.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.02.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 22.02.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of the last two latest inspection reports of BP- Asalwas, Bawal, Dist-Rewari, Haryana and last 2 inspection Page 1 of 8 reports of Virender Petroleum Company, Delhi-Jaipur Road NH-8(Lhs) Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 15.02.2018, denied disclosure of information on the ground that the information sought by the Appellant has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant further approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 22.02.2018, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
RTI - II File No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/613170-BJ
Date of RTI application 20.01.2018
CPIO's response 02.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 14.02.2018
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
First Appellate Authority's response 23.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of the last two regular inspection reports(latest) of IOCL, COCO Petrol Pump, Karnawas Rewari, and the latest regular inspection reports of all IOCL Petrol Pumps between Banipur Chowk and Haryana- Rajasthan Border (Khera Border) and lying on NH8(new NH8) in the district Rewari, Haryana.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.02.2018, denied disclosure of information on the ground that the information sought by the Appellant relates to personal information of the "Third party", disclosure of which would not serve any larger public interest and was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.02.2018, while relying upon the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2012/001062 in the matter of Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. SEBI, Mumbai, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mohit Yadav through audio-conferencing;
Respondent: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CPIO & Chief Manager, BPCL;
Respondent: (IOCL), Absent;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that the information sought had been wrongly denied by the Respondent under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 by stating that there was no relation to any public activity. The FAA had also upheld the decisions of the CPIOs. It was further submitted that he had not sought any individual information and rather desired information relating to retail outlets which were being run by the Page 2 of 8 Respondent Public Authority and/or by some other business entity and that the same could not be denied under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, quoting personal information of any individual. Furthermore, he submitted that the information sought in respect of a business entity which was involved in selling of a regulated commodity like petrol, diesel to its customers at the price fixed by the OMCs, could not be termed as personal information. Moreover, the allotment of dealership and the inspection of the retail outlets were guided by the allotment and marketing discipline guidelines respectively and that every person has the right to know whether the petrol being supplied to them was of proper quality / quantity. He further informed that even the Marketing Discipline Guidelines required the retail outlets to keep inspection reports of the retail outlets at the outlets itself and therefore, the inspection report sought by him should be provided. It was further submitted that the inspection report merely captures the quantity of petrol purchased by the retail outlet and also reports the quantity of petrol sold by the retail outlet by way of capturing the readings in totalizer. Furthermore, it was submitted that despite evaporation losses and handling losses, the sale of petrol/diesel through totalizer was actually more than the petrol / diesel actually purchased by the retail outlet, which was possible only in case of manipulation of totalizer readings. Hence the issues raised by him were in the larger public interest. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA and relied on its written submission. It was further informed that during the inspection of retail outlets there were various details available such as sales of petrol, diesel and lubricant which were in commercial confidence and hence, could not be provided under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and submitted that the Respondent in its initial reply had not denied the information under Section 8(1) (d) and that he had only quoted Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. He further informed that similar information was requested by him to HPCL and that the HPCL had provided the inspection report. On being queried by the Commission whether the inspection reports of the retail outlets were published in the public domain, the Respondent replied in the negative and submitted that due to confidentiality of various details of retail outlets they did not publish it on the website.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil wherein while contesting the replies of the CPIO/FAA, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RBI Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry 2016 (3) SCC 525 and in the matter of Girish Mittal Vs. Parvati V. Sundaram & Anr. In transfer case (C) No. 95 of 2015 and the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002877/SH dated 29.10.2014 in the matter of Surendra Singh Vs. CPIO, IOCL etc. etc. He further submitted that denial of information by the Respondent u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, was not justified and hence, it was prayed to direct the CPIO to provide the requisite information.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 04.07.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/613169) wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, the details of the last two inspections for the Retail Outlet were provided. Furthermore, it was submitted that the inspection of both the retail outlets had been carried out on the above mentioned dates as per the guidelines. Moreover, in the inspection of retail outlets, there were various details available for example sales of petrol, diesel and lubricant which were of commercial confidence and therefore, could not be provided under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, it was submitted that since the matter is sub-judice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP 10334/2017 on amendment in Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG-2012), accordingly final action is pending on the irregularities of inspection dated 09.01.2019. It was further submitted that all the relevant information had been provided to the Appellant and hence, prayed for disposal of the instant Appeal.Page 3 of 8
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged Page 4 of 8 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
With regard to larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission referred to the decision of 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, recognized 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 potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, Page 5 of 8 for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
In this context, the Commission referred to a 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."
With regard to disclosure of Broad outcome of complaints made by the Complainants, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
Furthermore, the Commission 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:Page 6 of 8
"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:
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)].Page 7 of 8
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 and in the light of larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission directs the Respondents, BPCL, State Office-Delhi, Haryana, HP & UK and IOCL, Marketing Division: Delhi & Haryana State Office, New Delhi, to provide the inspection reports sought by the Appellant in his RTI applications within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In cases where there were glaring irregularities, the broad outcome of such inspection reports should also be placed in the public domain to maintain the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Appeals stand disposed with the above direction.
(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: 15.07.2019
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
2. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Corporate Office 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, J B Tito Marg, New Delhi - 110049 Page 8 of 8