Central Information Commission
Mrrajeev Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 18 August, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002914/SH
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002082
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000411
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001503/SS
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/000614
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of first hearing : 24th February 2016
Date of first order : 24th February 2016
Date of second hearing : 25th May 2016
Date of second order : 22nd June 2016
Date of third hearing : 2nd August 2016
Date of final order : 18th August 2016
Name of the Appellants : Shri Rajeev Kumar,
Saini Paint House, Ghaziabad Road,
Chaulana Bus Stand, Gulawahi, Distt.
Bulandshahr (UP) Pin 203408
Shri Rajiv Kumar Saini
Dhaulana Bus Stand,
Gulaothi, Bulandshahr 203408, UP
Shri Mool Chand Aggarwal
Nanu Khan Colony, Sarafa bazaar,
Gulaothi, Bulandshahr, UP
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division UP State OfficeII, E8, Sector I, Noida 201301 Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/002914/SH Hearing on24.2.2016 This matter concerns compliance by the Respondents with the Commission's order of even number dated 30.10.2014. In his letter dated 27.3.2015, the Appellant had made the following two points:
(i) Inspection of records, directed by the Commission in paragraph 4 of the order dated 30.10.2014, was allowed after more than four months against the direction of the Commission to allow it in thirty days.
(ii) On the date of the inspection, it was conveyed to him that a large part of the records, that he wanted to see, had been destroyed by termites.
2. Since a satisfactory reply had not been received from the CPIO, a show cause notice was issued to him vide the Commission's letter dated 10.9.2015. Vide a subsequent letter dated 1.2.2016, the CPIO was directed to appear before the Commission, with the relevant records, today. Shri Pawan Sareen, Chief Manager (LPG) was present for the hearing. However, since a show cause notice was issued to the CPIO, he should have been present for the hearing in person. We further note from the records placed before us that Shri Subodh Mahajan, DGM is the CPIO.
3. In view of the foregoing, the Registry is directed to schedule another hearing of the matter, during which Shri Subodh Mahajan, DGM and CPIO, should be present in person at the office of the Commission at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066, with all the relevant records. Hearing on 25.5.2016
4. The matter came up again on 25.5.2016. The Appellant was represented by Shri Trilok Chand Sharma who was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Subodh Mahajan, CPIO was present in person.
5. With regard to the delay in facilitating inspection, alleged by the Appellant, the Respondents stated that the Commission's order dated 30.10.2014 was received by them on 18.11.2014. The order was forwarded to the field officer on 20.11.2014 for urgent action. They received an email dated 29.11.2014 from the field officer, stating that she had had a telephonic conversion with the Appellant for inspection of the records of the Gulaothi Gas Service, but was informed by him that the Respondents needed to send him some documents within twenty days of the order. He wanted that part of the order to be compiled with first before fixing a date for inspection. Subsequently, the field officer again got in touch with the Appellant on phone on December 22, 2014 and sent an email on the same day to the higher authorities to state that the Appellant had informed her that the complete information was still awaited and, therefore, the date of inspection would be determined thereafter. The inspection finally took place on 10.3.2015. The records for the year 2013 were shown, but the records for the years 2000 to 2012 have been destroyed by termite. We drew the attention of the Respondents to the fact that they were informed by the gas agency vide letter dated 12.1.2015 that the records had been destroyed by termite and asked them as to why the inspection was arranged subsequently in spite of the Respondents knowing the above. The Respondents stated that the inspection was arranged to enable the Appellant to see the situation of records for himself. The Respondents further submitted that two officers of the public authority, not belonging to the area of the CPIO, were asked to conduct an enquiry concerning the operations of the gas agency. They checked the information concerning sixty sample customers and no irregularity was found. This enquiry also confirmed that a large part of the records were destroyed by termite. The Respondents further submitted that if the Appellant has in mind any specific customer(s), in whose case irregularities were committed as per his information, he should share the information with them (Respondents) to enable them to conduct an enquiry. They also stated that they have taken action against the gas agency under Marketing Discipline Guidelines.
6. Speaking on behalf of the Appellant, Shri Trilok Chand Sharma reiterated that the inspection was not facilitated within the timeframe stipulated in the order of the Commission. He submitted that the records that the Appellant wanted to inspect are to be kept permanently, in the showroom, as per the rules and regulations of the public authority. The field officer is required to inspect the same every three months. Therefore, it is not possible that the records not being available or having been destroyed by termite came to the notice of the Respondents only when the Appellant sought an inspection. The representative of the Appellant alleged that a large number of connections of the agency have been cancelled. He also submitted that he has been given Marketing Discipline Guidelines pertaining to 2014 and not 2015. He urged the Commission to inspect the records and prayed for award of suitable compensation to the Appellant.
7. In the above context, we note that Appellants in the following cases have also made a complaint regarding noncompliance with the following orders of the Commission, concerning the same gas agency:
(i) Orders No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002082 dated 15.11.2012 and 18.3.2013 Shri Mool Chand Aggarwal vs. IOCL, Noida.
(ii) Order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000411 dated 24.2.2015 - Shri Rajiv Saini vs. IOCL, Noida.
(iii) Order No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001503SS dated 30.1.2014 Shri Mool Chand Aggarwal vs. IOCL, Noida.
(iv)Order No. CIC/LS/A/2013/000614 dated 17.4.2013 Shri Mool Chand Aggarwal vs. IOCL, Noida.
8. We would like to take up all these matters together on 2nd August, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor August, Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, new Delhi - 110066. The CPIO is directed to be present for the above hearing in person along with the officers who were involved in the work of compliance with the Commission's orders. He should forward to the Commission, with a copy to the Appellant, the written submissions of the Respondents regarding compliance with the five orders mentioned above. The written submissions should be accompanied by the necessary documentary evidence regarding the action taken by the Respondents in each case. The above written submissions should reach the Commission latest by 19.7.2016.
9. Further, since all the orders concern information in respect of the Gulaothi Gas Service, the CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this order, immediately on its receipt, by registered post to the said gas agency and inform them that in case they wish to make any submissions in the matter, they should be present at the next hearing on 2.8.2016. Hearing on 2.8.2016
10. The matter came up on 2.8.2016. The Respondents were represented by Shri Subodh Mahajan, CPIO and Shri Pawan Sareen, Chief Manager, who were present in person. On behalf of the Appellants, the following were present in person:
1. Shri Rajiv Kumar Saini.
2. Shri Mool Chand Agarwal.
11. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that in compliance of the Commission's directive in paragraph 9 above, a copy of the interim order dated 22.6.2016 was sent to M/s Gulaothi Gas Service on 7.7.2016 and they were informed that in case they wished to make any submissions in the matter, they should be present at the hearing on 2.8.2016. However, no one was present at the hearing on behalf of M/s Gulaothi Gas Service.
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002082
12. Shri Mool Chand Agarwal, the Appellant, submitted that the Commission vide its order dated 15.11.2012 had allowed inspection of records of M/s Gulaothi Gas Service in the context of his RTI application dated 25.11.2011. Since he does not have the knowledge of operation of computers, he took an assistant with him. But he was not allowed by the Respondents to take the assistance of any person to inspect the records. Thereafter, he approached the Commission again and the Commission vide order dated 18.3.2013 directed the CPIO not to take a rigid stand on the issue. The inspection took place on 14.4.2013, but records of one year only were shown and he was told that the agency did not keep records of more than one year. The Respondents stated that there was some technical problem on the day of inspection. Therefore, inspection of one year records could be done. However, the agency is required to maintain the records on a permanent basis. They further submitted that they have provided full details to the Appellant on 21.07.2015 in a CD.
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/ 000614
13. The Appellant, Shri Mool Chand Agarwal, submitted that the Commission on 17.4.2013 directed the CPIO to provide the copies of postal receipts in respect of the letters sent by the agency for new connections for the period 1.7.2011 to 31.3.2012. He got a letter dated 16.07.2013 from M/s Gulaothi Gas Service, advising him to collect the copies on 18.07.2013. The letter was dispatched on 17.07.2013 and he received it on 19.7.2013. Later on, he got a letter dated 7.3.2014 from the CPIO along with the copies of the postal receipts. The CPIO also enclosed a copy of the police complaint filed by M/s Gulaothi Gas Service regarding loss of the dispatch register concerning the dispatch receipts. It was claimed in the police complaint that while an employee of the agency was taking the register to get photocopies for provision to the Appellant, he lost it on the way. The Respondents stated that the order of the Commission was complied with on 7.3.2014. File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001503SS
14. The Appellant, Shri Mool Chand Agarwal, submitted that the Commission vide order dated 30.1.2014 directed the CPIO to arrange inspection of records by the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time at the office of the gas agency. When he visited the agency on 23.5.2014 with prior appointment, he was not allowed inspection as he had taken along an assistant with him. This happened even though the Commission in an earlier order had directed the CPIO to allow inspection to him along with an assistant. The copy of the said order was shown to the Respondents, yet they did not allow inspection. The Respondents stated that their officials were present at the Gas agency on 23.05.2014, but the news of inspection was got published by the Appellant in newspapers, because of which a large number of persons had gathered, which created a law and order problem. They further submitted that they are prepared to allow inspection on any date.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/ 000411
15. The Appellant, Shri Rajiv Kumar Saini, submitted that the Commission vide order dated 24.02.2015 directed the CPIO to facilitate inspection of documents submitted by those consumers, who had failed to submit the KYC forms. He further stated that he received a mail dated 16.06.2015 from the Senior Area Manager stating that their field officer shall be available after 25.06.2015 due to leave and thereafter, a date would be fixed. He did not get any further communication in spite of two reminders dated 17.9.2015 and 17.11.2015. He stated that during the inspection, he wanted to cull the details of fake connections. According to him, during an earlier inspection on 14.4.2013, he had identified certain fake connections which were terminated by IOC later on. The Respondents stated that as per the MDG guidelines, detection of fake connections results in their cancellation and the agency concerned can be penalised. Termination of the agency is done in case there are three instances of detection of such connections.
16. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that as per their guidelines, documents concerning new connections and subscription vouchers have to be retained permanently. They further submitted that an annual appraisal of every agency is carried out and based on the same, a decision is taken regarding the number of inspections that need to be carried out during a year. In their written submissions dated 18.7.2016, the Respondents have stated the following: "As far as the issue of not maintaining the records properly by the distributorship is concerned, there is no provision of taking disciplinary action against the distributor. Reason is that SV (Subscription Voucher) is an agreement between Customer & IOCL, thru Distributor & one copy of SV is provided to Customer at the time of release of new Connection. Hence for any further action related to connection, customer always produces his copy of SV or consumer no. to regernate the record. During the course of one of such inspections done at Gulaothi gas, our team of officers had contacted four sampled customers of each year from 2000 to 2015, who had availed new connections from 2000 to 2015 & collected their feedback, copies of SVs, POI, POA, which was analysed by our Noida Area Office & no deviation was found. As far as the issue of record effected (sic) with termite infection is concerned, it is submitted that the responsibility to maintain the records is of the distributor & Corporation does not exercise any control on its upkeep & Maintenance."
17. The Respondents also stated that action for termination of M/s Gulaothi Gas Service has been initiated and the agency is on the verge of termination. The Appellants, however, stated no such action has been taken. Moreover, according to them, the issue is not one of termination of the agency at this stage, but the fact that the agency has covered up the irregularities committed by them over the years by not offering the relevant records for inspection in spite of the directions of the Commission.
18. We have considered the submissions of the Appellants and the Respondents. In all the five cases, the complaint of the Appellants is that the inspection directed by the Commission was not allowed / allowed with delay and documents needed by them were not made available. There have been claims and counter claims by both the sides in this regard. The Appellants have stated that inspection was not allowed on time and, when allowed, the documents in question were not made available for inspection on one pretext or the other. The Respondents, on the other hand, have claimed that their field officer was in touch with the Appellants regarding inspection and the delay was from their (the Appellants) side. In one case, they have also claimed that one of the Appellants got a news item published in a local paper concerning the planned inspection, which resulted in the presence of a large crowd, thereby giving rise to a law and order situation. The Commission would not like to go into the veracity of the claims made by both the sides at this stage. However, we note from the submissions of the Respondents that in some cases, the inspection was offered by their field officer on phone. We would advise the Respondents that in such cases in future, the offer of inspection should be sent through a postal channel, in which the movement of the letter can be examined, if necessary, at a later stage. This would avoid the sort of controversy that has arisen in this case. One of the Appellants has submitted that the Commission should itself inspect the records. We do not see as to what purpose would be served by such an inspection, in the face of a situation, where the Respondents have sought to explain the nonavailability of records at the agency on one pretext or the other, in one case by stating that the records were destroyed by termites. Primafacie, there has been something wrong with the functioning of M/s Gulaothi Gas Service, which appears to have continued for a long time. The responsibility for this lies with the public authority and we do not see as to what purpose would be served by considering imposition of penalty on the CPIOs.
19. However, as stated above, the facts placed before us establish, primafacie, irregularities on the part of M/s Gulaothi Gas Service. The Respondents have not contested the fact that fake connections were detected at the agency. More than the issue of timely / delayed offer of inspection, on which both the sides expended considerable energy in making their submissions, the matter before us, in our view, raises the question of some systemic flaws that can enable an agency to indulge in malpractices. The Respondents stated before us that the records in question are required to be retained permanently. They also admitted that they periodically inspect each agency, the periodicity of inspection depending upon an annual appraisal carried out by them. It is, therefore, not clear as to how the fact of the record of the agency having been destroyed by termites remained hidden from the Respondents all the years, in spite of their inspections. Significantly, after submitting that their guidelines require permanent retention of the records in question, the Respondents sought to wash their hands of the entire matter by stating that the responsibility to maintain the records is of the distributor and the IOC does not exercise any control on their upkeep and maintenance. If it is indeed so, it would appear to be a major flaw in the system followed by the Respondents, because the records in question contain all the information regarding grant of connections and whether the agency did it in a regular manner or not. Therefore, if the Respondents do not look into the aspect of maintenance of such records, they create a situation where an agency can commit malpractices and cover its tracks by claiming nonavailability of records on one pretext or the other. The Respondents stated that two officers of the public authority, not belonging to the area of the CPIO, were asked to conduct an enquiry concerning the operations of M/s Gulaothi Gas Service. They checked the information concerning sixty sample customers and no irregularity was found. However, the inspection appears to have been carried out by some middle ranking officials. In our view, because of the issues, including systemic issues, thrown up by the matter before us, it needs to be looked into at a higher level. While it is duty of the Respondents to introduce checks, which would prevent irregularities on the part of their agencies, the Commission is interested in seeing that such systemic changes, as are required, are introduced to ensure that in the interest of transparency, the records required to be maintained by the agencies are properly maintained by them. In our view, this cannot be ensured unless an agency that does not maintain the records properly, is visited by adverse consequences.
20. In view of the foregoing, we remit this matter to the Chairman of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. By virtue of the authority vested in us under Section 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act, we direct the Respondents to get the matter looked into by a senior officer, with a view to introducing such systemic checks, as are necessary, to ensure that in the interest of transparency, the documents concerning gas connections are maintained by the agencies of the Respondents meticulously, so that the same can be inspected by the public in response to their RTI requests. This would also, in our view, go a long way in checking malpractices on the part of the gas agencies. The Commission would expect an enquiry into the matter to be conducted expeditiously and to be informed of the findings of the Respondents and the steps taken by them to improve the system of maintenance of records.
21. The Appellants also prayed for award of adequate compensation to them. While acknowledging that they have followed up the matter over a period of time, in our view there is nothing on record to establish any loss or other detriment suffered by them because of nonavailability of the records that they wished to see. Therefore, there is no ground for award of any compensation in this case.
22. With the above directions and observations, the compliance issue in the five cases listed above is disposed of.
23. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Copy to
1. Shri B. Ashok, Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3079/3, J B Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi110049
2. M/s Gulaothi Gas Service Distributor Indane, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar