Central Information Commission
G Rajarajeswari vs Ministry Of Petroleum & Natural Gas on 3 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/MOPNG/C/2022/117818
Smt. G Rajarajeshwari ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2024
Date of Decision : 03.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.01.2022
PIO replied on : 17.03.2022
First Appeal filed on : 31.03.2022
First Appellate Order on : -
nd
2 Appeal/complaint received on : 13.04.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 16.01.2022 seeking the following information:-
"Subject on information Sought: Study visit of Members of Parliament 7 th Feb, to 11 th Feb, 2011 to Kolkata, Port Blair Chennai and COP OM No.8/3/PCB/2010 dt.2010 replies to the questionnaire filed by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide R-4204/215/2010- MC dt 31 st Jan, 2011 COP has prepared 21 point questionnaire on the petition of late P Sugunavati and sought replies from Ministry and all the replies are fraudulent misrepresentations through falsification and fabrication of public records. My mother has fought against this fraud and injustice caused to her petition for 8 years and expired at the age of 96 years As it is COP that has brought into light that fraud occurred 60 years back, which was perpetrated by BPCL in conspiracy with dealer, with that evidence the 90year lady has filed suit.
However the seriousness in the issue of playing fraud by a 15 billion worth Public Sector undertaking with their Team of legal staff on Members of Parliament was not addressed to the extent required and for a decade the passing on the ball continued without a relief as COP is sending such Page 1 of 5 complaints to MOPNG, MOPNG is transferring the same to BPCL, and the perpetrator is becoming the judge and deciding issues against Victim. There is something wrong and the process may send wrong signals as playing fraud on Members of Parliament is grave and should be addressed with all such seriousness.
Hence this application as both Ministry and BPCL failed to address the complaint for over decade and the petitioner was harassed by BPCL through false case in court /threat for filing such petition before COP.
Both Ministry and BPCL are playing passing on the ball game for more than a decade and there was never any sincere attempt to find truth in the allegations. The pasted enclosure of first appeal states the sorry state of affairs in suppressing facts.
Information Solicited: 1. Please provide the Authority that must be held accountable for the fraud perpetrated on Members of Parliament during study visit for the total false misrepresentation in writing in replies."
The CPIO/Under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, vide letter dated 17.03.2022 replied as under:-
"The requisite information sought vide above referred RTI application pertains to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) therefore, the RTI application is being transferred under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 to PIO, BPCL for providing the requisite information to you directly."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, The Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.03.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 19.07.2023, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"i)Fraud on Members of Parliament Members visiting for study visit at Chennai, and also CIC.
ii.Abuse of RTI Act in providing false and fabricated information and misrepresenting to Appellants for making unlawful gains to their dealer and causing unlawful loss to appellant by providing false and incorrect information.
2.The few minutes video conference can not bring into light the abuse of RTI Act by Public authorities to cause deliberate and willful loss to a citizen for 13 years by feeding her with false information through falsification and fabrication of public records. VC hearing is not suitable for this appeal.
Page 2 of 53.RTI Act has given an opportunity for First Appeal and atleast in serious first appeals, such FAA's must provide opportunity of personal hearing and deliver speaking orders when abuse of RTI Act is specifically alleged. Not performing such statutory obligation is not proper for FAA.
4.FAA's failure to hear and deliver speaking orders are burdening CIC and appellants also. The appellants who want information un urgent and important matters are constrained to wait for CIC hearing for more than 18 months and deprived off the opportunity of settling the issues at First Appeal level
4. 3. Both CPIOs reside in New Delhi. Appellant can send her representative at New Delhi for hearing at First Appellate Authority's Office at Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
5.PRAYER: Appellant humbly prays for directions to FAA, MOPNG for hearing and for deciding the issue on merits with Speaking orders and if necessary appellant may then go for complaint before CIC further. Appellant will be deputing G.L.N. Prasad as representative as he has attended meeting at MOPNG and BPCL in 2012 on same issues and well versed with facts on such allegations."
Another written submission was received from the Appellant vide letter dated 23.07.2023 which has been taken on record.
A written submission was received from the Section Officer, M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter dated 22.12.2023 in all the matters, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"2. It is informed that the said RTI application was forwarded by the other CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat to this Ministry for providing information to the applicant. The appellant had not sought any specific information in her RTI application instead she had only requested for personal hearing for making fraudulent misrepresentations to Members of Parliament by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) during the study visit in the year 2011. The sought information not covered under the "definition of "information" as provided under the Section 2 (f) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005. The Public Authority is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority...". However, the RTI application was transferred under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 to BPCL vide Ministry's letter dated 17 03,2022 (copy enclosed)
3. From the records, it has been found that she had not filed 1° appeal before the Appellate Authority of this Ministry. Now, it is observed that the applicant has directly filed the instant second Appeal dated 04.04.2022 before the Hon'ble CIC alleging that the CPIO, MoPNG failed to provide the information. However, CPIO, MoPNG had transferred the said RTI timely to BPCL and BPCL has already provided the information to the applicant vide letter dated 08 04.2022 (copy enclosed), Page 3 of 5 4, Further, it is stated that BPCL had given opportunity for personal hearing to her husband Shri G.L.N. Prasad, who was nominated by Mrs. P. Sugunavati to inspect all available records with the BPCL. The applicant inspected the file available with BPCL pertaining to the Retail outlet (M.S. Krishnaiah and Co/V.V. Sastry) and had collected 14 Nos. of certified documents from the relevant file on 25.02.2C13. Second opportunity for personal hearing was also given to him and he had collected 07 no. documents on 24.11.2015."
A written submission was also received from the CPIO and DGM Marketing, BPCL, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana dated 27.10.2023 which has been taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Represented by Shri G L N Prasad Respondent: 1. Shri Alok Kumar Sinha, US, M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas
2. Shri Varun Ramadas, Territory Coordinator, BPCL, Hyderabad The Appellant's representative stated that no information was provided to him, till date.
Shri Alok Kumar Sinha stated that the query in the RTI application was vague and ambiguous. However, considering that the subject matter of the query pertained more closely to BPCL, the application was transferred to the concerned PIO vide letter dated 17.03.2022.
Shri Varun Ramadas referred to their written submission dated 27.10.2023 and stated that the Appellant her deceased mother Smt P Sugunavati and Shri G L N Prasad were misusing the RTI mechanism by filing multiple RTI applications on the same subject matter which has been heard and adjudicated by several benches of CIC earlier. In a recent decision in Second Appeal No CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/130959-UM decided on 31.10.2023, the Commission had inter alia held that:
"The aforesaid dicta essentially prove that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant/Complainant should take note that their right to information is not absolute.
In the light of the above decisions, the Complainant/Appellant herein is advised to strictly refrain in future from filing applications repeatedly seeking information on the same subject matter, under the RTI Act unless he is able to submit legally admissible document such as Succession certificate of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land mentioning late Mrs. P. Sugunavati as one of her Legal Heirs of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land and Succession certificate of deceased Mrs. P. Sugunavati mentioning Mrs.G. Raja Rajeswari as one of Legal Heirs of late Mrs. P. Sugunavati, to claim that she Page 4 of 5 is the rightful legal heir of the deceased third party to access the information."
However, the Appellant/ her representative has till date not submitted the following documents:
1. Succession certificate of deceased Mrs. P. Sugunavati mentioning Mrs. G. Raja Rajeswari as one of Legal Heirs of Mrs. P. Sugunavati.
2. Succession certificate of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land mentioning Mrs. P. Sugunavati as one of her Legal Heirs of the Lessor of the Retail Outlet land.
3. Authority letter of Mrs, P. Sugunavati & Mrs. G. Raja Rajeswari authorizing Mr. G.U.N. Prasad to attend the CIC hearing of 21.04.2022.
Decision:
In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and taking into consideration the earlier decisions pronounced by the Commission, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint. The instant matter is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause which is not existing in the present instance. Furthermore, the legal position with regard to the powers of the Commission u/s 18 is no longer res integra since the pronouncement of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010) decided on 12.12.2011 wherein it was held that Section 18 and 19 serve two different purposes and one cannot be a substitute for another. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The instant Complaint stands dismissed as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल साम रया) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5