Central Information Commission
Arunanshu Das vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 15 July, 2019
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/BPCLD/A/2018/114724-BJ
Mr. Arunanshu Das
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Territory Manager (LPG)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL)
2, Durgapur LPG Territory Office & LPG Plant
Rajbandh Chatty, P O - Rajbandh
Durgapur - 713212
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.07.2019
Date of Decision : 15.07.2019
Date of RTI application 16.11.2017
CPIO's response 14.12.2017
Date of the First Appeal 30.12.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 30.01.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.03.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding the details of the number of complaints regarding distribution/delay in providing gas connection to BPL families under PMUY received by the Respondent Public Authority since inception of the scheme along with action taken against the erring persons/distributors including constitution of any committee for redressal of such complaints to bring transparency in this regard and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter 22.12.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 30.01.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Arunanshu Das through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Vipul Shrivastava, Territory Manager (LPG) & CPIO, BPCL through VC;Page 1 of 5
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him, till date. He further alleged that part of information had been wrongly and malafidely denied by the Respondent under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, he contested the order of the FAA by stating that the decision of the CPIO was upheld by him. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO/FAA and further relied on its written submission dated 05.07.2019. Explaining the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Respondent submitted that the information which was not in the larger public interest and would also cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals and therefore was denied. Moreover, the details pertaining to the total numbers of PMUY Connection released in West Bengal as on 31st October, 2017/ total potential available as per SECC list of 2011 at Birbhum and Burdwan District, etc. were disclosed to the Appellant. The Appellant contested the above averments of the Respondent and submitted that complete information was not provided to him despite involving larger public interest in the matter. Attention of the Commission was drawn towards the derogatory/depreciative and objectionable statement made by the Appellant in his First Appeal against the CPIO by stating that "the CPIO has acted as a peon of the post office". The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 05.07.2019 wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO / FAA, point-wise response to the queries raised by the Appellant in his Second Appeal was answered. Furthermore, the decision of the Commission in a similar subject-matter was referred to in Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/110499 dated 13.06.2019. Therefore, it was requested to the Commission to dispose of the instant matter. On being queried by the Commission whether the rejoinder dated 05.07.2019 sent to the Commission was endorsed to the Appellant, the Respondent replied in the negative and assured that they will forward a copy of their rejoinder with enclosures to the Appellant forthwith.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
Page 2 of 56. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
With regard to larger public interest involved in the matter, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest"
must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."Page 3 of 5
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
"Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
"Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and in the light of sensitivity involved in the matter, the Commission directs the First Appellate Authority, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Kolkata, to re-examine the RTI application of the Appellant and furnish a point-wise response in the light of larger public interest demonstrated by him obliterating the personal details relating to the customers as per Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent was also advised to endorse a copy of their rejoinder with enclosures sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 15.07.2019
Page 4 of 5
Copy to:
1. Mr. Atul Kumar, Regional LPG Manager, East and First Appellate Authority, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Bharat Bhavan Plot No. 31, Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata-700095 Page 5 of 5