Central Information Commission
Sharad Jadhav vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 21 October, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/HPCLD/A/2019/100040
Sharad Jadhav ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum ... ितवादी/Respondent
Corporation Limited, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24-05-2018 FA : 03-09-2018 SA : 02-01-2019
CPIO : 21-06-2018 FAO : 25-10-2018 Hearing: 16-10-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai seeking following information with reference to his representation(s) regarding pay-scale anomalies/promotion:-
1. "The various levels at which the matter was taken including of MoPNG. Please give documents/records which show the various levels at which the matter was taken up.
2. This system of promotion is also followed by other Oil and Gas PSUs and also by other leading CPSUs. Please give me the list of other Oil and Gas PSUs and also by other leading CPSUs.
3. The intermediary pay scales that were in operation in oil PSUs were legitimate scales which existed with the approval of the Competent Authority as per provisions under DPE guidelines.
Please give me the copy of approval of the Competent Authority as per provisions under DPE guidelines."
2. The CPIO responded on 21-06-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 03-09-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 25-10- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before Page 1 of 4 the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Sharad Jadhav did not attend the hearing and also could not be contacted at the scheduled time of hearing despite efforts. Mr. K L Meena, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent contended that the appellant is seeking clarification from the CPIO which cannot be provided as per the RTI Act, 2005. Decision:
5. Since the appellant is not present to attend the hearing, this Commission takes note of the documents annexed with the 2nd appeal wherein he has expressed his displeasure.
6. This Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant are presumptive in nature which requires analyses and interpretation of documents. Therefore, this sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 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 is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, 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 Page 2 of 4 '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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(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 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. In light of the factual matrix of the instant appeal and the aforesaid case- laws, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is not obliged to provide any clarification to the appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 49. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:16-10-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, 17, Jamshedji
Tata Road, Mumbai - 400020.
2. Sharad Jadhav
Page 4 of 4