Central Information Commission
Surinder Aggarwal vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 5 December, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/131542
Surinder Agarwal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division, Punjab
State Office, RTI Cell, Indian
Oil Bhawan, Plot No. 3-A,
Madhya Marg, Sector-19-A
Chandigarh-160019 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/12/2022
Date of Decision : 01/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 31/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 15/04/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 15/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29/07/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.02.2021 seeking the following information:1
a. "Whether aforesaid engineers namely Dinesh Kumar (employee Code. T02822) and Naveen Singh (employee code TLP03193) have obtained necessary license/ pass in their name from the office of W & M department for carrying out repair in the 'fuel' dispensing pump's /machines?;
b. Whether M/s. T & M Services Consulting Pvt. Ltd. is authorized by the W & M Department for carry out passing/stamping at the RO?
c. Copy of license/ pass issued in the name of aforesaid engineers namely Dinesh Kumar and Naveen Singh from Weight and Measurement Department to carry out repair in the 'fuel dispensing pumps/machines'."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 31.03.2021 stating as under:-
Point No. 1 & 3:- "The issue pertains to Weight & Measurement dept. (Legal Metrology) and GVR India Pvt. Ltd. IOCL has n role in it.
Point No. 2:- Issue pertains to Legal Metrology (Weight & Measurement dept.) hence no comment can be offered."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2021. FAA's order dated 15.05.2021 held as under:-
"..........The Respondent is hereby directed to provide the information as obtained from M/s GVR India (P) Ltd to the Appellant."
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO replied to the appellant on 09.06.2021 as under:-
1. M/s GVR India (P) Limited has confirmed that M/s T&M Services Consulting Pvt.
Ltd. is their authorized service provider and has been carrying out W&M work for them and provide these services under GVR's license.
2. Dinesh Kumar and Naveen Singh are employees of GVR authorized Service provider -M/s T&M Services Consulting Pvt Ltd.
3. Dinesh Kumar and Naveen Singh are authorized under the license of Gilbarco Veeder Root India Limited obtained from the office of the W&M Department to carry out the repair of the fuel dispensing pumps/machines. Copy of License is attached."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Amrendra Kumar, CGM (Planning SES) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual background submitted that as per the SOP/ Protocol, the designated officers( Dinesh Kumar and Naveen Singh) of M/s GVR India (P) , the contractor only were authorized to carry out repairs/ inspection of the Fuel dispensing pumps and machines and that these two officers did not have the valid license to carry out the inspection. He further narrated his grievance that on 01.02.2018 ,the above mentioned two officers conducted inspection of the two petrol pumps of the Appellant who apparently were not in possession of valid license; which led him to filing of instant RTI Application. However, he is aggrieved by the fact that the information furnished by the CPIO was false and misleading.
CPIO relied on his written submission filed prior to hearing and submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant. In response to Appellant's contention, he clarified that the above mentioned have proper valid license and had visited the Appellant's petrol pumps to carry out repair works ; therefore the allegation raised by the Appellant was unacceptable. He added that M/S GVR India Private Ltd does not need a separate license for undertaking any repair works in the state of Punjab. The provision in Section 23(1-)of the LM Act requires GVR to hold a license for manufacture, repair or sale , a copy of which has already been shared with the appellant vide 'amended license for license no.877 dated 30 January 2022 read with the clarification issued by Controller of LM, Chennai dated 4 March 2022', stating that the manufacturing license is valid until 31- December 2025 (Attached as Annexure 1). A copy of the GVR's amended repair license no. 2486 dated 29 January 2022 read with the clarification issued by controller of LM, Chennai dated
4 March 2022, stating that the repairer license is valid until 31 December 2025. (Attached as Annexure 2) was also annexed . Therefore, GVR has a valid license to undertake repair works in the state of Punjab. He further explained that it is pertinent to note that the license conditions of the Repair License do not provide any specific restriction regarding the persons whom GVR can authorize to act as its authorized representative to act in accordance with the Repair License to maintain/service/repair GVR make dispensing units and that Reading the LM Act, there does not appear to be any artificial barriers which would operate as a restriction on GVR's ability and discretion in choosing the persons it authorizes to act in furtherance of the Repair License.
3Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant Appeal was non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO. In response to it, the CPIO explained that reply along with relevant inputs has already been furnished to the Appellant earlier and also now vide latest written submission.
In view of the above and considering the submission of the parties, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought at points no. 1 & 2 in the instant RTI Application as well as the replies of the CPIO thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant on the said points strictly do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and interpretation to be drawn by the CPIO based on his queries as quoted in RTI Application; to that extent the reply provided by the CPIOs' is in line and with the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
The Appellant 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 also 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] wherein 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, provided 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, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:4
"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....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 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;5
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Furthermore, the information sought by the Appellant at point no. 3 more particularly the copy of license of averred third parties contains their personal information which is directly hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is furthermore drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, 6 including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Considering the totality of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case in hand along with the forgoing discussions, the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter.
However, by taking an empathetic view to the concern of the Appellant, the Commission hereby advises him to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7