Central Information Commission
Sayyad Kalim Akhtar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 2 September, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/IOCLD/C/2018/115822-BJ
Mr. Sayyad Kalim Akhtar
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Dy. General Manager (LPG - Sales)
Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
5th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Civil Lines
Allahabad - 211001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.08.2019
Date of Decision : 02.09.2019
Date of filing of RTI application 05.01.2018
CPIO's response 12.01.2018
Date of filing the First appeal Not on Record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 13.03.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the certified copy of the complete address (previous and current) of M/s Shirdi Indane Gas Agency; whether M/s Shirdi Indane Gas Agency had informed the Respondent Public Authority regarding the transfer of their office, if yes, the certified copy of that transfer intimation letter.
The Dy. General Manager (LPG-Sales), Allahabad, vide its letter dated 12.01.2018 informed the Applicant that the competent authority in the matter was Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Chief General Manager (Institutional trade), Lucknow, therefore, he requested him to take up the matter with the concerned authority. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Sayyad Kalim Akhtar through VC;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Agarwal, DGM (LPG) (Sales), Lucknow through VC;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was not provided by the CPIO who had provided a vague and misleading reply to him. Therefore, he had filed a complaint before the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 specifically seeking only imposition of penalty against the delinquent official and that he did not intend to obtain information from the Respondent at this stage. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the RTI application was not received by them from the Allahabad Office hence information could not be provided earlier to the Complainant. However, after the receipt of the notice of instant hearing before the Commission, they provided a reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 29.07.2019, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the Complainant during the hearing.
On being queried by the Commission regarding the reason for not transferring the RTI application within the period stipulated under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, no satisfactory response could be provided by the Respondent present during the hearing. The Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
In the present instance the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) of the Act had not been made. Even assuming that the application was transferred, it cannot be said that the transferring authority can be completely absolved of his duties and responsibilities as CPIO thereafter. In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is he who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial Page 2 of 4 action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
However, with regard to imposition of penalty, the Commission observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated on the correctness of an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observed that the RTI application was not transferred by the Dy. General Manager (LPG-Sales), Allahabad to the Chief General Manager, (Institutional Trade), Lucknow but was returned to the Complainant along with the IPO with a request to approach the concerned Authority which was in contravention to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission would like to place on record its displeasure to the Dy. General Manager (LPG- Sales), Allahabad over the casual manner in which the RTI application had been dealt with. The Page 3 of 4 Dy. General Manager (LPG-Sales), Allahabad is therefore, warned to be extremely careful and vigilant in handling RTI petitions in future, failing which the Commission would initiate penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 02.09.2019 Page 4 of 4