Central Information Commission
Mrravindra Kumar Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 23 July, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001090
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 23rd July 2015
Date of decision : 23rd July 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh,
Vill & PO Nikhati Kalan, P.S.
Raghunathpur, DisttSiwan, Bihar 841504
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Corporate Office: Plot No 3079/3, Sadiq
Nagar, J. B. Tito Marg, New Delhi 110049
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Darshan Kumar, Manger (HR) and APIO was
present in person.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 30.11.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on ten points regarding action taken on his complaint dated 5.2.2013 and related issues, came up today. The Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondents in response to points No. 1, 3 and 6 of his RTI application. On perusal of the record, we note that at point No.1, the CIC/SH/A/2014/001090 Appellant had sought a copy of his complaint letter and letter No. 644 of office of Chief Vigilance Officer, IOCL. The information was provided by the CPIO and we see no ground to interfere with the response of the Respondents to this point. At point No. 3, the Appellant sought a copy of the file notings regarding consideration of his complaint. The Respondents stated that a copy of the enquiry report concerning the complaint was provided to the Appellant on 11.4.2014. They expressed their willingness to provide a copy of the relevant file notings, but after excising information, if any, regarding third parties in the said notings, under Section 10 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the relevant file notings on the above basis. At point No. 6, the Appellant wanted to inspect of all material and records concerning examination of his complaint in the office of the vigilance officer. Since a good deal of information, including a copy of the enquiry report, has been provided by the Respondents, we see no ground for any inspection by the Appellant. In the above context, we also note that this Appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications to this public authority. In our order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000014 dated 3.11.2014 we had made the following observations: "We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. In the above context, we note that the issue of multiple RTI applications filed by the Appellant in connection with his unsuccessful bid for a dealership was considered in our order No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001628/SH dated 7.10.2014. In that CIC/SH/A/2014/001090 order, we had observed that the Respondents had asked the Appellant to inspect all the relevant records in their office and had further noted: "For reasons not explained to the Commission, the Appellant has chosen not to carry out the inspection and has been seeking information on the same issue through various RTI applications." We had also noted the following observation of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.: "Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
CIC/SH/A/2014/001090
2. With the direction to the CPIO in the preceding paragraph regarding provision of information in response to point No. 3 of the RTI application and the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
3. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner 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 CIC/SH/A/2014/001090