Central Information Commission
Adarsh Mani vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 24 November, 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/2021/119214 +
CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/119359 +
CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/127626
Adarsh Mani ......अपीलकता /Appellant
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 Appeals/Complaints have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on same subject matter of the RTI Applications in question.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal (s)/Complaint:
RTI application(s) filed on : 18/01/2021 & 02/12/2020
CPIO replied on : 10/02/2021 & 29/12/2020
First appeal(s) filed on : 25/02/2021, 11/01/2021 & Not on record
First Appellate Authority's (s) : 31/03/2021, 22/02/2021 & Not on record
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05/05/2021, 03/03/2021 & 06/07/2021
1
CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/119214
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2021 seeking the following information:
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 10.02.2021 stating as under:-2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.02.2021 against points No. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. FAA's order dated 31.03.2021 held as under:-
"Q.1: Details of PWD site is- http://uppwd.gov.in/pages/en- topmenusecond/eap/fuel-stations.
Q.2: PIO has already provided the information, however, you have asked for opinion of PIO which is not permissible. Further, Hon'ble Supreme court has held in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay that RTI cannot be used as a tool for grievance redressal.3
Earlier also appellant has filed various RTI applications and appeals on the same issue which amounts to misuse of RTI Act and the same is not permissible."
CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/119359 + CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/127626 Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.12.2020 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. Kindly arrange to inform / provide the copy of instructions of Corporation through which on the strength of Gorakhpur Divisional Office has decided that the Depth of offered land / plot is only 19 Meter advised through mail dated 05.10.2020 offered by me for RO Dealership at Km stone No. 24 to 28 on SH-75 District SIDDHARTH NAGAR.
2. I have been applied for above Dealership in Group III and an opportunity has been given by IOCL to me for offering land. Accordingly I have offered the land. Kindly arrange to provide the information about Corporation policy 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 other opportunity to offer land or alternate land in the advertised location.
3. According to Gorakhpur Divisional Office mail dated-05.10.2020 my candidature has not been found to be eligible for allotment of the above RO Dealership. Kindly arrange to inform according to brochure any clause / point number of the company that the opportunity and selection process will be continued to me in case land is not found suitable by LEC. I would also be considered for selection along with group 3 applicants again.
4. Kindly arrange to inform about decision taken by IOCL on my request application submitted to Executive Director & State Head, UP state Office-1 4 Lucknow sent through Registered Post Receipt No. RU544216980IN Dated 03.11.2020."
In cases no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/119359 and CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/127626 -
The CPIO replied to the appellant/complainant on 29.12.2020 stating as under:-
Point No. 1:- "In this regard, you are requested to kindly refer brochure dated 24.11.2018 {clause No. (VI)(i)} for RO dealership which is available in the public domain website: www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in.
Point Nos. 2, 3 & 4:- In this regard, you are requested to kindly refer brochure dated 24.11.2018 {clause No. (V)m Note 2} for RO dealership which is available in the public domain website: www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in."
In case no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/119359 -
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.01.2021. FAA's order dated 22.02.2021 held as under:-
Q.1: "Copy of LEC report is annexed.
Q.2-4: Relevant clause of Brochure dtd.24.11.2018 is clause no. 4(v)(m) note-2."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of desired information in response to point no. 1 specifically, the appellant/complainant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s) and Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/ Complainant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Uday Narayan, Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales) & Rep. of CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant/Complainant at the outset narrated at length his grievance regarding cancellation of his allotment of petrol pump by the IOCL under Group C on the basis of report of the 'Land Evaluation Committee' (LEC) whereby his 5 land was found short to the extent of 19 meters area as against the required land area of 35 meters. In this regard, he sought for the copy of the guidelines/clarifications followed by the competent authorities for measurement of land. However, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that a copy of the requisite guidelines have not provided to him till date which led him to the filing of instant Appeal/ Complaint.
In response to Appellant's/Complainant's contentions, the Rep. of CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his latest written submission dated 22.11.2022, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim for ready reference
-
"xxxxx That the RTI applicant/appellant has sought information with respect to allotment of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership at location - Between KM stone No. 24 to 28 on SW75, Dist. Siddharthnagar.
3. The aforesaid location was advertised on 25.11.2018 under SC category for allotment of RO dealership at Sr. No. 30 in Siddharthnagar District The applications for the same were invited through online basis on the website: www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in and last date for the application was 25.12.2018.
4. A brochure for applicants was also published named "Selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets" dated 24.11.2018 in Hindi and English in which all the terms and conditions regarding filling up of forms and other criteria was mentioned. The same is uploaded in the above website which is publicly available and can be accessed by any individual.
5. That there were three categories of the applicants who applied for the dealership as in Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3. These groups are divided as per availability of land with the applicants for setting up of petrol pump. This criterion was clearly mentioned in the above brochure. Selection of the applicants is done by conducting draw of lots. As per guidelines, draw of lots is first conducted among the Group-1 applicants. If there is no applicant or no one is selected in Group-1 category, then the draw of lots is conducted among the Group-2 applicants. The same process is followed for the Group-3 applicants.
6. Total 4 applicants (Group1=0, Group-2=0 & Group-3=4) applied for Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership at location - Between KM stone No. 24 to 28 on SH-75, 6 Dist. Siddharthnagar. It is mentioned here that the RTI applicant/appellant is one of the applicant for this location and was applied in group 3 category and an opportunity for offer of land has been given to the applicant as per policy and later moved to group 1. Sh. Adarsh Mani has applied for Gata No. 365 ka for which LEC was done on 03.022020 by a two member committee. At the time of LEC (Land Evaluation Committee), the sand offered by the applicant Sit Adarsh Mani was rejected as the land was found only 19 meters as against the requirement of 35 meters as per advertisement. As per Dealer Selection Guidelines, the applicant who has applied in groupw3 category may be given only one change for applying for land and if the land is found unsuitable shall be made ineligible. Based on the above, Sh. Adarsh Mani has been declared ineligible.
In this regard, he had also requested for personal hearing with officers of the Corporation at State Office level. Based on his request there was a VC conducted on 20.08.2021 and recorded with Sh. Adarsh Mani and his father Sh. Chandra Mani. During the VC, it was categorically explained to the applicant that as per Policy he has been given one opportunity for offering land, as he had applied under Group-III having his land unsuitable he was made ineligible. However, during the entire VC the applicant kept on insisting that his case may be considered on "stand alone" basis for granting another opportunity. Presently, no eligible candidate for selection for this location.
That the RTI applicant was also one of the applicants for the Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) for another location in Within 4 KMs from Parsa Railway Crossing on Nimign730„ District Siddharth Nagar advertised under SC category at Sr. No. 442. Total 12 applicants (Group=3, Group2=4 Group3=5) applied in which he was applied in group-3 category.
9. The 1st draw of Lots for the above location was held on 17.06.2019 at 14:00 hours. The intimation letter for the same was sent on 07,06.2019. The applicant Sh. Ashish Bharti was selected during draw of Lots. The letter for submission of ISD/Documents and Letter of selection was sent on 19.06.2019.
10. Sh. Ashish Bharti had submitted documents and scrutiny for application was completed wherein he was found eligible for land evaluation. The LEC was done on 20.09.2019. The LEC observed intersections on the road at 50 mtr, 100 mtr and 270 mtrs. Hence, as per the DSG issued vide mail dated 19.08.2019 letter for seeking clarification from NHAI was sent on 31.10.2019. The last date for submission of NHAI clarification was 07.02.2020. Failing which the application was sent to Group-III on 16.03.2020. As the applicant was not able to provide the required clarification he was sent to Group-3.
711. After Sh. Ashish Bharti was sent to Group-3, draw of lots was done on 03.03.2021 wherein other candidate Sh. Arunesh Gupta was selected. Sh. Arunesh Gupta has not submitted ISD/Documents thus his selection was cancelled due to non submission of ISD/Documents.
12. After rejection of Sh. Arunesh Gupta there was only one applicant Sh. Mahendra Pal remaining in Group-I who had been sent the letter for selection and letter for submission of ISD and Documents. Sh. Mahendra Pal had not submitted ISD/Documents within prescribed period thus his selection was also cancelled.
13. Thereafter, total 04 applicants remains in Group-2. Draw of lots for the location was held on 14.12.2021 wherein Pratibha Arya was selected. Selection of Pratibha Arya was cancelled due to non submission of ISD/documents.
14 Thereafter, total 03 applicants remains in Group-2. Draw of lots for the location was held on 04.05.2022 wherein Sh. Shyamu was selected. Sh. Shyamu has submitted ISD and documents. Scrutiny of the applicant was completed wherein he was found eligible for land evaluation. The LEC was done on 12.09.2022 wherein land offered by Sh. Shyamu has not been found suitable. So selection of Sh. Shyamu was cancelled. Thereafter, total 02 applicants remains in Group-2. Draw of lots of above location has been now scheduled on 25.11.2022 and the above RTI applicant Shri Adarsh Mani is stilt in Group-3 category for finalization of this locationn
15. It is most important to mention here that the RTI applicant is a regular information seeker and the same address persons (Sh. Adarsh Mani, his father Sh. Chandra Mani and Smt. Gayatri Devi have filed total 29 RTI applications since January 2019. Out of 29 RTI applications 21 RTI applications filed by Smt. Gayatri Devi. applications filed by Sh. Adarsh Mani 2 RTI his father Sh. Chandra Mani and total 6 RTI applications flied by 16. In view of the above, it is noticed that the applicants are trying to fish out the information by filing multiple RTI applications one after another and seeking supplementary information after receiving reply of one RTI. 17. By filing new RTI applications, the applicants are trying to settle their grievance regarding not being selected for the above said locations. By filing repeated RTIs applications, the applicants are trying our Corporation and its officials to divert their resources.
18. In the judgemert of Aditya Bandhopadhyay a Versus CBSE Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned such act of repeated RTIs on art of RTI applicant.
819. In view of the above, it is informed to RTI applicant in many our replies that in future, the corporation will not be able to provide any information to you with regard to before mentioned locations and their selection process.
Comments with respect to Case Nom CIC/I0CLD/A/2021/119214 .....
20. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 05.05.2021 against query no.-1 of our reply ref. UPSO-I/Retail/RTI /R-2376/2335 dated 10.02.2021 with respect to his RTI application 18.01.2021.
21. 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 above guidelines has been given to him in his previous RTI application which has been replied by us on 17.11.2020 (Annexureg4). Hence, it is advised to please refer the same.
22. In this regard, he has submitted first appeal dated 25.02.2021 before the First Appellate Authority nominated under RTI Act. Vide order dated 31.03.2021 (Annexureas2), the appellate authority has provided the specific path of PWD website where the copy of guidelines is available as sought in the RTI query. Hence, it is submitted that the clear information has been provided to the appellant in the RTI and order of the appellate authority. Appellant has said in the second appeal that the information provided was wrong and misleading is not acceptable.
B Comments with respect to Case No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/119359......
23. That the RTI applicant has submitted the present second appeal dated 03.03.2021 against query No. I. of our reply ref. UPSO-I/Retail/RTI/R-2340/2308 dated 29.12.2020 with respect to his online RTI application ref.:
IOCLD/R/E/20/02223 02.12.2020.
24. In the query No. 1, the RTI applicant/ appellant has sought copy of instructions of the Corporation for which land offered by the applicant was measured by the LEG committee (Land Evaluation Committee) for the RO dealership. In our reply, we have provided specific information with respect to instructions including respective clause (Annexuren3) of the brochure dated 24.11.2018 published for RO dealership. It is also inform about the availability of the above brochure with website.
25. In view of our reply, he has submitted first online appeal ref.
IOCLD/A/E/21/00032 dated 11.01.2021 before the First Appellate Authority 9 nominated under RTI Act. Vide order dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure-4), the appellate authority has provided the copy of LEG report conducted for his offered land with respect to query No. 1 and other specific clause (Annexurens5) related to query No. 2 to 4 mentioning page number of the brochure which was not provided in our reply. Hence, it is submitted that the clear and specific information has been provided to the appellant in the RTI and order of the appellate authority. Appellant has said in the second appeal that the information provided was wrong and misleading is not acceptable.
C Comments with respect to Case no. CIC/10CLD/C/2021/127626...
26. Comments with respect to above notice are already covered in point No. 23, 24 & and 25 above as the appeal and RTI are same..........."
To a query from the Commission, the Rep. of CPIO clarified that for measurement of land only the guidelines available on the State PWD weblink are followed by IOCL and no separate guidelines in this regard are made public on their website. He further clarified that measurement of land area for allotment of petrol pump varies from State to State based on the parameters defined by their concerned PWD authorities. He added that there is only one common weblink portal created by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas for all the three OMCs which come under the domain of the Ministry and no specific clarifications as such with regards to the issues raised by the Appellant/Complainant are available in the public domain.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of both the parties observes that the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se rather it is about the Appellant's/Complainant's resolve of bringing to fore the alleged cancellation of petrol pump against his allotment letter , based on the valuation of land area by IOCL Land Evaluation Committee for which he sought clarifications from the CPIO regarding guidelines followed by the Committee for measurement. In response to it, the CPIO invited attention of the Appellant/Complainant towards the hyperlink of the State PWD Authorities which is the guidelines/ criteria followed by the IOCL authorities for land measurement.
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 10 supplemented the original reply through their latest written submission filed prior to the hearing.
The Appellant/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 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, 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) However, by taking an empathetic view and in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed firstly to provide a hard copy of the relevant extracts of guidelines of State PWD Authorities which he has referred in response to point no. 1 of RTI Application, free of cost to the Appellant/Complainant and also to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant/Complainant with the competent authority on a mutually decided time to be intimated in advance telephonically by the CPIO to the Appellant and facilitate due assistance to him in resolving his queries/doubts pertaining to the instant flagged in the RTI Applications.
The above said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.11
Also, the Appellant/Complainant is advised to pursue his grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
s ADVISORY Further, it will be in the best interest of Respondent Public Authority to explore the viability of maintaining/updating such information on their Website pertaining to clarifications on the issue flagged by the Appellant/Complainant in the instant matter regarding guidelines or procedure followed by LEC of IOCL in land measurement for allotment of petrol pump, in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of Suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO, NHAI is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action. 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 is directed to provide a complete set of a copy of his written submission dated 21.11.2022 along with all the annexures free of cost to the Appellant/Complainant, if not provided to him at all, within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal/ complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 12 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 13