Central Information Commission
Asif Raza vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 23 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/667487+
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668420 +
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668428
Asif Raza अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(Marketing Division) BIHAR
STATE OFFICE, RTI Cell,
Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan
(5th Floor), Dak Bunglow
Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/03/2023
Date of Decision : 21/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note- The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal (s):
RTI applications filed on : 13/09/2022, 03/09/2022 & 29/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 30/09/2022, 26/09/2022 & 26/10/2022
First appeals filed on : 17/10/2022, 27/10/2022 & 27/10/2022
First Appellate Authority orders : 11/11/2022, 15/12/2022 & 21/12/2022
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : Nil
1
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/667487
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. What was the reason EOI No.: BSO/OPS/POL/BJU/EOI/2022-27 Date has been extended while the last date was 22/08/2022?
2. How many dealers participated EOI No.: BSO/OPS/POL/BJU/E0I/2022-27 Please provide me all dealer name with RTKM from Barauni location?"
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 30.09.2022 stating as under:
"Reply 1- The last date for EO1 No: BSO/OPS/POL/BJU/EOI/2022-27 was extended owing to the Administrative Reasons.
Reply 2- E01 ref no : BSO/OPS/POL/BJU/EOI/2022-27 is still under process. Further the detail sought by you as such is not maintained in format sought. Collating the said data would disproportionately diverse the resources of the Public Authority."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2022. FAA's order, dated 11.11.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668420 Information sought:
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"As per the company EOI NO: BSO/OPS/POL/BJU/EOI/2022-27 that the dealer who has own tank lorry he can take the load of his petrol pump and he can also take the load of 2 more dealers apart from himself, who does not have own tank lorry, then please tell us Under which policy like Government of India or Oil Marketing Companies (OMCS) they are given such exemption?"2
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 26.09.2022 stating as under:
"The reason sought by you for inclusion of such terms is purely a commercial decision of IOCL and as such providing reason for the same does not come under the definition of "Information" under the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2022. FAA's order, dated 15.12.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668428 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. As per your RTI letter No. BSO/OPS/RTI/5512 dated 26/09/2022 EOI No.:
BSO/OPS/POL/BJU/EO1/2022-27 is still under process then under which policy Tanklorry No. BRO9GB/7697, BR11GD/9999, BR30GA/7388 are being operated?
2. I request you to kindly provide me month of September 2022 all invoice copy, following tanklorry No. BR09GB/7697, BR11GD/9999 BR30GA/7388 which is being operated Barauni Marketing Terminal ? Under section 2(N)."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 26.10.2022 stating as under:
"Reply 1:
You have not sought any information, rather you have asked question as to why TT no. BR09GS7697, BR11GD9999 & BR30GA7388 are running. Under the RTI Act, disclosure of information does not include reply to the question based on surmises & conjectures. Please note that TT no. BR09GS7697& BR11GD9999 are running present contract for Ex- Barauni Tml while TT no. BR30GA7388 is inducted under transportation contract Ex- Motihari Tml.
Reply 2:
The information sought pertains to the commercial information of third party & accordingly same cannot be disclosed. Further, you have also not stated any public purpose for seeking the third party information."3
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2022. FAA's order, dated 21.12.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Ashish Kumar Jha, G.M. (Retail Sales) & CPIO present through video- conference.
In case no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/667487 -
The Appellant vehemently contested the alleged inaction of the IOCL by extending the time limit of dealers who participated in the above mentioned EOI, which resultantly had a negative impact on his transport business; as he remained preoccupied with the commitments made to dealers and was enable to take/ enter into any other contracts. In this regard, he sought for the reasons from the CPIO for such time extension; however he is aggrieved by the fact that the desired explanation has not been provided to him.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his averred reply.
In case no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668420 -
As regards the issue regarding dealer who has his own tank lorry, can take the load of his petrol pump as also the load of 2 more dealers apart from himself, who does not have own tank lorry, the CPIO explained that such facilitation of transport services to two or more dealers on consortium basis is provided on administrative internal policy decisions by IOCL and that such decisions are purely on commercial basis. In fact, these orders are issued, considering the financial inability of the dealers. He further submitted that this factual position has already been intimated to the Appellant and also such conditions for grant of rebate pertaining to transport services for dealers on consortium basis are also made public by incorporating under the Terms and Conditions on EOI. At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to provide a revised categorical response to the Appellant on these lines.4
The Appellant again put forth his grievance that such kind of rebate as offered to the dealers by IOCL adversely impact the financials of the transporters/ dealers and should be avoided.
In case no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668428 -
The Commission at the outset counselled the Appellant that the queries raised by him in the instant RTI Application were not in the form of seeking information per se, rather it was in the nature of asking for clarifications/inferences to be drawn by the CPIO which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. In response to it, the Appellant again contested the inaction of the IOCL in giving unwarranted benefits of time extensions to their dealers.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his averred reply.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about the redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged inaction of the IOCL in granting extension of time and other ancillary benefits to the dealers which allegedly impact the Appellant's transport business negatively; and he has sought clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any 5 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;.." In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:6
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, it is also not of the place to note that the copy of invoice bills of tank lorry as sought by the Appellant at point no. 2 in case no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668428 contains the elements of personal information of third party dealers which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by 7 the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing to assist the Appellant is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In case no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/668420 -
However, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost pertaining to impugned RTI Application of instant Appeal by putting forth the submission in categorical manner, as mentioned by him during the hearing. The said reply should be provided by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, it will be in the best interest of IOCL to explore the viability of introducing/updating a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought issues/clarifications and/or respective orders/circulars pertaining to rebate/ concessions offered to the dealers on the subject matter issues can be easily identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the 8 public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action. Also, in pursuance to clause 4 of the hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions pertaining to above mentioned Appeals, free of cost with the Appellant within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9