Central Information Commission
Amrish A Amin vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 14 July, 2023
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. CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153952
CIC/BPCLD /A/2022/127222
CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153958
CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127200
CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/126261
CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127217
CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/149606
Shri Amrish A Amin ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New
Delhi
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 13.07.2023
Date of Decision : 14.07.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
153952 26.01.2022 02.03.2022 18.08.2022 - 18.11.2022
127222 26.01.2022 02.03.2022 25.03.2022 18.05.2022 08.06.2022
153958 26.01.2022 02.03.2022 18.08.2022 - 18.11.2022
127200 26.01.2022 02.03.2022 25.03.2022 18.05.2022 08.06.2022
126261 26.01.2022 25.02.2022 26.03.2022 21.04.2022 02.06.2022
127217 26.01.2022 02.03.2022 25.03.2022 18.05.2022 08.06.2022
149606 23.06.2022 29.07.2022 11.08.2022 - 19.10.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153952 (2) CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127222 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated26.01.2022 seeking the following information:-Page 1 of 10
The CPIO/Under Secretary, M/o Petroleum & Natural Gas, vide letter dated 24.02.2022 transferred the RTI Application to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
The CPIO & Chief Manager Coordination (Retail) Hq, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vide letter dated 02.03.2022 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 25.03.2022& 18.08.2022. The FAA& SM (RNP & RE) Hq, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vide order dated 18.05.2022 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO (OMC and Dist) and US, M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter dated 10.07.2023 wherein it was stated that the RTI applications were transferred to BPCL being industry co-ordinator u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to reply to the Appellant directly as the information sought pertained to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) which is held and dealt with by the OMC's.Page 2 of 10
A written submission was also received from the CPIO (Retail RHQ and DG (Coordination) BPCL vide letter dated 28.06.2023 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
(3) CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153958 (4) CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127200 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated26.01.2022 seeking the following information:-
The CPIO/Under Secretary, M/o Petroleum & Natural Gas, vide letter dated 24.02.2022 transferred the RTI Application to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
The CPIO & Chief Manager Coordination (Retail) Hq, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vide letter dated 02.03.2022 replied as under:-
Page 3 of 10Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 25.03.2022 & 18.08.2022. The FAA & SM (RNP & RE) Hq, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vide order dated 18.05.2022 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.07.2023 which has been taken on record.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO (OMC and Dist) and US, M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter dated 10.07.2023 wherein it was stated that the RTI applications were transferred to BPCL being industry co-ordinator u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to reply to the Appellant directly as the information sought pertained to the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) which is held and dealt with by the OMC's.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO (Retail RHQ and DG (Coordination) BPCL vide letter dated 28.06.2023 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
Page 4 of 10(5) CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/126261 (6) CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127217 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated26.01.2022 seeking the following information:-
The CPIO, BPCL LPG HQ, Vide letter dated 25.02.2022 replied as under:-
The CPIO & Chief Manager Coordination (Retail) Hq, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vide letter dated 02.03.2022 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 25.03.2022 & 26.03.2022. The FAA &CGM (Sales), LPG Hq, vide order dated 21.04.2022 stated as under:-Page 5 of 10
The FAA & SM (RNP & RE) Hq, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vide order dated 18.05.2022 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.07.2023 which has been taken on record.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO (Retail RHQ and DG (Coordination) BPCL vide letter dated 28.06.2023 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
Page 6 of 10(7) CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/149606 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated23.06.2022 seeking the following information:-
The CPIO & Chief Manager Coordination (Retail) Hq, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vide letter dated 29.07.2022 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.08.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 7 of 10
A written submission was also received from the CPIO (Retail RHQ and DG (Coordination) BPCL vide letter dated 28.06.2023 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant with Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Advocate participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Agarwal stated that the RTI applications under consideration in Second Appeal Nos CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153952, CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153958 and CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/149606 were forwarded by the M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas (M/o PNG) to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL Ltd). However, the first appeals addressed to the FAA, M/o PNG were not answered, till date. Elaborating the queries raised in the RTI applications Shri Agarwal stated that the Appellant was only seeking copies of certain letters/ communications issued by the Ministry which should have been disclosed. He also argued that the information sought was clear and specific as circulars fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as claimed by the Respondent, BPCL. Furthermore, exemption u/s 8 (1) (d) of the Act was not applicable since he was only seeking policy documents issued by a regulator. Relying on the judgement of Jamia Milia Islamia vs Sh Ikramuddin, WP (C) 5677/2011 dated 22.11.2011 he argued that a public authority cannot claim exemption u/s 8 (1) (j) of the Act about any information or thing held by a public authority in relation to itself.
The Respondent represented by Shri Alok Kumar Sinha, CPIO and US, M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas; Shri Prakash Parate, DGM (Co-ord), BPCL and Shri Page 8 of 10 Vijay Sehgal, DGM (Complaint Redressal), BPCL participated in the hearing through video conference.
Shri Alok Kumar Sinha denied availability of documents pertaining to Second Appeal No CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/149606 and stated that only the documents pertaining to Second Appeal NOs CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153952 and CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153958 were available with them as the said RTI applications were filed before M/o PNG. The RTI applications under consideration in these matters were transferred to BPCL as it was the industry co-ordinator with regard to Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) dealt with by the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs). Referring to the RTI queries in CIC/MOPNG/A/2022/153958, he stated that contrary to the Appellant's claim the circulars issued by the ministry are not signed by the OMCs. Furthermore, it was also not clear as to what information was required by the Appellant as the complete circular number was not mentioned in the application therein.
Shri Prakash Parate stated that the circulars mentioned in the RTI applications are not public documents but internal communications made by the ministry to the OMCs on the subject of disciplining agencies/ dealership which cannot be disclosed as per Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The final guidelines formulated on the basis of the consultations/ correspondences i.e., Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) are already published in the public domain. Shri Parate also made a feeble plea during the hearing without proper justification claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which was not entertained by the Commission.
Decision:
In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that as per the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. The Respondents present during the hearing could not justify their position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention to any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Exemption claimed by the Respondent BPCL u/s 8(1) (d) was also not justified cogently.
While observing that in order to deny information under any of the exemption mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed, In this context, the Commission refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case."Page 9 of 10
Moreover, as per the provisions of Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005, where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration the fact that the circulars referred in the RTI applications are issued by the M/o Petrleum and Natural Gas, the Commission deems it fit to remand all these matters to Shri Alok Kumar Sinha, CPIO and US, M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas to re- examine the RTI applications are provide a consolidated reasoned and speaking response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant by 31.08.2023 under intimation to the Commission. The registry of this bench has already forwarded the hard copies of the ebooks of all the files listed for hearing to to Shri Alok Kumar Sinha through email on 13.07.2023.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 10 of 10