Central Information Commission
Chandreyee Maitra vs Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory ... on 6 November, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/PNGRB/A/2023/104842-UM
Ms. Chandreyee Maitra
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board,
Nodal Cpio, Rti Cell, 1st Floor, World Trade Centre,
Babar Road, New Delhi-110001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.11.2023
Date of Decision : 06.11.2023
Date of RTI application 08.08.2022
CPIO's response 02.09.2022
Date of the First Appeal 17.09.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 31.10.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 27.01.2023
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on points, as under:-
a) For Lucknow; GA Number 99.17, which are the similar placed cities or local area taken into consideration by the Board in terms of Regulation 8 of the PNGRB Exclusivity Regulations, 2008 for the purposes of setting targets of Domestic connections to be achieved, steel inch kms to be laid and CNG compression capacity to be achieved? Also, please provide the copies of the decision to the above effect contained in any Notice of the Meeting Agenda papers and Minutes of the Meeting of the Board or any other supporting document.Page 1 of 4
b) In the event there was no similar placed city or local area under (a), then kindly provide the names of the cities or areas which have been considered by the Board to be the closest to Lucknow; GA Number 99.17, Also, please provide the copies of the decision to the above effect contained in any Notice of the Meeting Agenda papers and Minutes of the Meeting of the Board or any other supporting document.
c) Kindly provide the particulars of the successful bid and bidder in the city or local area in (a) above or as in case of (b), whose bid has been considered for the purposes of setting targets of Domestic connections to be achieved, steel inch kms to be laid and CNG compression capacity to be achieved in Lucknow; GA Number 99.17. Also, please provide the copies of the decision to the above effect contained in any Notice of the Meeting, Agenda papers and Minutes of the Meeting of the Board or any other supporting document.
d) Was any extrapolation or interpolation made in setting the targets for Lucknow; GA Number 99.17? Also, please provide the copies of the decision to the above effect contained in any Notice of the Meeting, Agenda papers and Minutes of the Meeting of the Board or any other supporting document.
The CPIO, Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, vide letter dated 02.09.2022 stated that the information sought falls under Section 52(6) of the PNGRB Act, which restricts PNGRB for disclosing any information received from the entity to any person or authority except on the grounds of public interest. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 31.10.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant.Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Chandreyee Maitra, attended the hearing.
Respondent: Shri Mohit Budhiraja, Advocate and Major Khaja Mohideen, CPIO, attended the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI Application stated that information sought has been denied by the Respondent under Section 52 (6) of PNGRB Act, 2006 which is in complete violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. She further apprised the bench that objective behind seeking such sort of information is that she wanted to know on what parameters PNGRB is giving authorisation and the same is in larger public interest.
The Respondent while defending their case submitted that as per Section 52 (6) of PNGRB Act, 2006, the Board shall maintain confidentiality in respect of any information and record received Page 2 of 4 by it from the entities and shall not disclose information contained therein to any person or authority except on the grounds of public interest. He further referred to Section 16 of the PNGRB Act according to which laying, building, operating or expanding any pipeline as common carrier or contact carrier or laying, building, operating or expanding any city or local natural gas distribution network immediately before the enactment of the Act shall be deemed to have authorisation by the Central government and the board only acts as a rubber stamp accepting the authorisation of the entity.
DECISION:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, it is noted that the information has been denied under Section 52 (6) of PNGRB Act, 2006 which is in complete violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The denial of information under the RTI Act must fall within the provisions categorically mentioned under Section 8 and 9 of the Act, but none of these provisions have been applied in the aforementioned appeals. The Commission further observes that the Respondent has sought to justify non-disclosure of information citing Section 52(6) of PNGRB Act, 2006. It is noteworthy that the PNRB does not fall within the scope of Section 24 of the RTI Act and hence is not one of the organizations enlisted in the Second Schedule which are exempt from the purview of the RTI Act.
Moreover, it is interesting to note the Section 22 of the RTI Act - the non obstante clause which gives the RTI Act an overriding effect in case of inconsistency with any other Act lays down as follows:
"22. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
The argument of the Respondent is fallacious because there is no provision in the PNGRB Act which debars disclosure of information under the RTI Act. Hence, the RTI Act shall apply, as per the aforementioned Section 22 of the Act. Thus the replies sent by the public authority are legally untenable and are thus set aside as such. In the light of the above discussion, it is hereby directed that the Respondent shall send a revised replyin the light of the submissions made during the Page 3 of 4 hearing, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.The Respondent shall submit compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service by 30.11.2023.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनाक ं / Date: 06.11.2023 Page 4 of 4