Central Information Commission
Abbas Oanali Jiniya vs Directorate General Of Shipping Dg(S) on 16 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGOSP/A/2025/627267
Abbas Oanali Jiniya .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
M/o. PORTS, SHIPPING AND WATERWAYS,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF SHIPPING,
RTI CELL, 9TH FLOOR, BETA BUILDING,
I-THINK TECHNO CAMPUS,
KANJURMARG (EAST),
MUMBAI - 400 042 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026
Date of Decision : 12.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2024
CPIO replied on : 24.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 16.01.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.03.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.06.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2024 seeking the following information in relation to the workings, deliberations, minutes and reports of the High-Level Committee to enquire into the sequence of events leading to the stranding of ONGC Vessels in the Cyclone Tauktae ("High-Level Page 1 of 11 Committee") constituted vide F. No. 12031/(11)/1/2021-0NG-ll dated 19th May 2021, including, inter alia, "1. Could you please advise as to how many meetings of the High-Level Committee were undertaken during its tenure?
2. Could you please provide the schedule and record of the meetings of the High-Level Committee since its constitution?
3. Could you please provide the minutes for each of the meetings of the High-Level Committee?
4. Could you please provide a complete record of the deliberations of the High-Level Committee in formulating the report?
5. Could you please provide all interim recommendations suggested/ issued by the High-Level Committee prior to the final report and recommendations?
6. Could you please advise which when the aforementioned interim recommendations of the High-Level Committee were implemented by Directorate General of Shipping?
7. Could you please provide the report and recommendations of the High-Level Committee submitted in December 2021?
8. Could you please advise which recommendations from the Report of the High-Level Committee have been implemented by the Directorate General of Shipping and when?
9. Could you please advise if there has been any change in criteria, procedure, policy and/or rules and regulations in relation to the grant of Specified Period Licenses for Accommodation Work Barges (AWB), Anchor Handling Tugs (AHT) and Anchor Handling Tug Supply Vessels (AHTS) under Sections 406 and 407 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, as amended and the Coasting Vessels Act, 1838, after Cyclone Tauktae?
10. Could you please advise when the change in criteria, procedure, policy and/ or rules and regulations in relation to the grant of Specified Period Licenses for AWB's, AHT's and AHTS Vessels under Sections 406 and 407 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, as amended and the Coasting Vessels Act, 1838, was implemented by the Directorate General of Shipping?Page 2 of 11
11. In addition to the High-Level Committee, could you please provide us with the records, deliberations, recommendations and reports from the "Two Member Committee" constituted to look into reforms required in terms/conditions/ specifications for hiring and procurement of offshore vessels so that they are aligned with international standard and safety norms, consisting of the Director General-Shipping and Additional Secretary (Exploration) Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas?
12. Could you please provide us with the Casualty Inquiry Report of the Directorate General of Shipping on the incident during Cyclone Tauktae involving AWB 'P-305' and AHT 'Varapada' specifying the conclusions and recommendations under Section 359 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 as amended?
13. Could you please provide us with the copies of all Specified Period License Applications submitted to the Directorate General of Shipping between August 2019 and May 2021?
14. Could you please advise as to the total number of Specified Period License Applications that were accepted and the total number that were rejected along with the reasons for the rejections, if any, between August 2019 and May 2021?
15. Could you please advise us as to the timeline for approval or rejection of a Specified Period License Application that was submitted between August 2019 and May 2021?
16. Could you please advise us about any internal discussions and correspondence at the Directorate General of Shipping in relation to the grant/ rejection of Specified Period Licenses between August 2019 and May 2021 and provide copies of such correspondence?
17. Could you please provide us with the copies of all Specified Period License Applications submitted to the Directorate General of Shipping between April 2021 and May 2024?
18. Could you please advise as to the total number of Specified Period License Applications that were accepted and the total number that were rejected along with the reasons for the rejections, if any, between April 2021 and May 2024?Page 3 of 11
19. Could you please advise us as to the timeline for approval or rejection of a Specified Period License Application that was submitted between April 2021 and May 2024?
20. Could you please advise us about any internal discussions and correspondence at the Directorate General of Shipping in relation to the grant/ rejection of Specified Period Licenses between April 2021 and May 2024 and provide copies of such correspondence?
21. Could you please provide us with copies of the approved SPL permits that have been issued between August 2019 and May 2024?
22. Could you provide us copies of circulars, notices and orders notified and/or published by the Directorate General of Shipping in relation to the Specified Period Licenses following Cyclone Tauktae in May 2021?
23. Could you please provide us copies of the correspondence between the Directorate General of Shipping and the following entities in relation to pending Specified Period License Applications between May 2021 and December 2021:
i. Afcons Infrastructure Limited ii. Boskalis Offshore Contracting B.V. iii.McDermott International Management S DE RL iv. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC)."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.09.2024 stating as under:
Reply to Ques. 1 to 7 Please find attached the Report of the High-Level Committee on the Sequence of Events Leading to the Stranding of ONGC Vessels during Cyclone "Tauktae", dated 4th December 2021. The report contains details on the committee's composition, meetings, deliberations, and recommendations, as requested. However, there is no separate record available at the Directorate General of Shipping concerning the specific number of meetings, schedules, records, or minutes of the meetings.
Reply to Ques. 8 In reference to the High-Level Committee (HLC) report dated 04.12.2021, the recommendation in para No. 14, the following recommendations of the High- Level Committee (HLC) has been implemented by DG Shipping so far:Page 4 of 11
1. Port Entry Requirements (Valid statutory certificates, periodical surveys & inspections) has been made applicable at offshore facilities for Foreign Flag Vessels.
2. Adequate and dedicated (Anchor Handling Tug) AHTS for each non-propelled barges & ETV, based on the approved towing plan by RO, which shall not be used for any other purpose.
3. Approved Mooring analysis & limiting environmental condition.
4. All accommodation barges deployed in Indian EEZ need to have lifeboats and life-rafts complying with applicable SPS or MODU Code.
5. ISM Code has been made applicable to ali non-propelled vessels operating on Indian coast & offshore oil fields.
Several other recommendations of the High-Level Committee (HLC) report are under various stages of implementation by DG Shipping Notably, some of these recommendations are being addressed through broad policy enhancements and regulatory measures. These include improvements in safety protocols. Additionally, initiatives to streamline operational procedures and enhance compliance mechanisms are in progress, ensuring alignment with international standards.
Reply to Ques. 9 to 10 Please refer to the recent DGS orders and Circulars on the subject matter available in the DGS website as follows:
https://www.dgshipping.gov.in → Shipping → Notices DGS Orders/ DGS Circulars.
Reply to Ques. 11 The Director General of Shipping did not participate as a member of the committee constituted to look into reforms required in terms/and conditions/ specifications for hiring procurement of offshore vessels. Additionally, the Directorate General of Shipping does not possess any records, deliberations, recommendations, on reports related to the committee's proceedings.
Reply to Ques.12 The requested information pertains to a third party and, therefore, cannot be disclosed without their consent.
Reply to Ques. 13 There is no separate record of the SPL applications submitted to the Directorate between August 2019 and May 2021. Additionally, since the SPL applications involve third-party information, they cannot be disclosed without the consent of the relevant parties.
Reply to Ques. 14 to 16 Page 5 of 11 The requested information is related to third party and may not be provided without their consent.
Additionally, there is no separate record of applications that have been accepted, rejected, or the reasons for rejection. Retrieving the requested information of 2 years from August 2019 to May 2021 would require manual extraction data from individual files which could disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and, therefore, may not be feasible to provide.
Reply to Ques. 17 There is no separate record of copies of SPL applications submitted to the Directorate between August 2021 and May 2024. Additionally, since the SPL applications involve third-party information, they cannot be disclosed without the consent of the concerned parties.
Reply to Ques. 18 to 19 The requested information pertains to third parties land cannot be disclosed without their consent.
Furthermore, there is no separate record specifically detailing the applications that have been accepted, rejected, or the reasons for rejection. To provide the requested information for the period from April 2021 to May 2024 would require manually extracting data from individual files, which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and, therefore, may not be feasible.
Reply to Ques. 20 There is no separate record of internal discussions or correspondence at the Directorate General of Shipping regarding the grant or rejection of SPLs between April 2021 and May 2024.
Reply to Ques. 21 The Directorate General of Shipping issued approximately 506 Specified Period Licenses (SPL) between August 2019 and May 2024. However, a separate record of copies of the approved SPLs is not maintained. Retrieving the requested information for the five-year period from August 2019 to May 2024 would require extracting data from all relevant files, which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and, therefore, may not be feasible.
Furthermore, the requested information involves third-party details and cannot be disclosed without their explicit consent.
Reply to Ques. 22 Please refer to the recent DGS orders and circulars related to this matter, available on the Directorate General of Shipping website as follows:Page 6 of 11
https://www.dgshipping.gov.in/ →Shipping →Notices → DGS Orders/ DGS Circulars.
Reply to Ques. 23 There is no separate record of copies of correspondence between DG Shipping and the listed entities.
Additionally, the requested information pertains to third parties and cannot be disclosed without their consent.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 07.03.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO with the following observations -
"....V. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
1. Non-availability of Information in the Requested Form Upon reviewing the RTI request, it has been observed that the information sought by the applicant is not maintained in the exact format as requested.
As per the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines mentioned in Para 12 of OM No. 1/32/2013-IR dated 28.11.2013, information should ordinarily be provided in the form it is requested. However, if providing the information in such a format disproportionately diverts the resources of the public authority or risks the preservation of records, it may be denied.
Given the nature of the request, retrieving the requested information in the specified format would require significant resource allocation, which would impact the core functioning of the Directorate General of Shipping (DG Shipping). Therefore, we regret to inform that the information cannot be furnished in the requested form.
2. Information Related to Specified Period License (SPL) Applications (Requests 7 to 23) and Third-Party Information Constraints The appellant has sought copies of Specified Period License (SPL) applications, licenses, discussions, correspondence, and timelines for approval and rejection over a five-year period (2019-2024). On average, DG Shipping processes approximately 1,600 SPL applications per year, amounting to around 8,000 applications over the requested period. These applications contain confidential third-party information, and as per Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, disclosure requires prior consent from the concerned parties.
Issuing individual notices to 8,000 applicants to seek their consent would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, making Page 7 of 11 compliance impractical. Extracting and compiling such voluminous data manually is both cumbersome and resource-intensive. Additionally, processing and responding to potential objections from thousands of applicants would further add to the administrative burden. Given that the requested information pertains to approximately 8,000 SPL applications, issuing notices to each applicant individually would severely impact the operational efficiency of DG Shipping by diverting resources from essential regulatory functions.
Furthermore, since many of these applications contain commercially sensitive and confidential data, obtaining consent from third parties on such a large scale is logistically unfeasible. In view of these constraints, and in accordance with Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the request for this information is denied as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.
3. Compliance with Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act The appellant has referenced Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which mandates public authorities to maintain their records in a manner that facilitates the right to information. In compliance with this requirement, DG Shipping has implemented the e-Office system, where vessel-wise digital files are maintained, including timelines, discussions, and correspondence related to SPL applications.
However, retrieving data from thousands of such digital files and compiling them into the requested format would require extensive manpower and effort, thereby disproportionately diverting resources from the primary functions of the organization. Therefore, the request for compiling data across multiple years and files is not feasible under the constraints of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
4. Efforts Towards Enhancing Transparency DG Shipping has taken significant steps towards transparency and efficient record management. Currently, SPL applications are processed through the e-Office system. Additionally, an e-Governance system is under development to streamline record management further. Once implemented, this system will facilitate seamless extraction of data related to received, accepted, and rejected applications, making such information more readily available in the future.
Conclusion While DG Shipping remains committed to transparency and compliance with the RTI Act, it is also essential to balance these obligations with Page 8 of 11 administrative efficiency. The denial of the requested information is based on:
1. The impracticality of compiling information in the requested format. The disproportionate diversion of resources required for data extraction. 2.
3. The mandatory third-party consent requirements under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
The ongoing efforts to enhance digital record management for improved 4. accessibility in the future.
Accordingly, the appellant is informed that the requested information cannot be provided at this stage."
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Shri Onkar Pradhan, Advocate present through audio conference.
Respondent: Shri Ankur Anal, Asst. Director (Gen. Tech.)/ CPIO present through audio conference.
5. Bench, at the outset, pointed out to the Counsel of Appellant that queries raised by the Appellant in the RTI application is cumbersome and voluminous in nature which do not conform to word limit of 500 words as per Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012. To this, Ld. Counsel of the Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that he is not satisfied with the response of CPIO at point No. 14, 15, 18 and 19 of RTI Application. It was the plea of Ld. Counsel of the Appellant that as per the observation of FAA, DG Shipping process approximately 1,600 Specified Period License (SPL) applications per year, amounting to around 8,000 applications over the requested period. This facts depicts that Respondent organization have the date/numbers of SPL application and which should be provided in response to these points of RTI Application.
6. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record. CPIO reiterated the contents of his written statement, wherein, he, inter alia, stated as under -
"2. The applicant had made 23 questions under the RTI application dated 02.09.2024. This office had provided information to the questions except Page 9 of 11 those which requested this office to collate information. The applicant requested for copies of various licenses which needs to be collated and is not readily maintained.
3. There is no separate record maintained for rejection of SPLs between April 2021 and May 2024, which was sought. The Directorate had issued approximately 506 Specified Period License (SPL) between August 2019 to May 2024. However, a separate record of copies of the approved SPLs is not maintained. Since, retrieving data from thousands of such files and compiling them into the requested format would require extensive manpower and effort, thereby disproportionately divert the resources from the primary functions of the organization. Therefore, the request for compiling date across multiple years and files is not feasible under the constraints of Section
7 (9) of the RTI Act.
4. The Directorate remains committed to transparency and compliance with the RTI Act, it is also essential to balance these obligations with administrative efficiency. The denial of the appeal towards requested information is based on:
(i) The impracticality of compiling information in the requested format.
(ii) The disproportionate diversion of resources required for data extraction.
(iii) The mandatory third-party consent requirements under Section 11 of the RTI Act.
(iv)The ongoing efforts to enhance digital record management for improved accessibility in the future."
Decision:
7. Heard the parties.
8. Having heard the submissions of both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission observes that despite the fact that the information sought by the Appellant appears to be cumbersome and voluminous in nature, the CPIO with his sincere efforts tried and attempted to address each and every query so raised by the Appellant in the RTI Application. The reply of the CPIO is found to be appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. Nonetheless, considering the limited prayer of the Appellant regarding point No. 14, 15, 18 and 19 of RTI Application, the Commission deems it fit to direct the CPIO to revisit the contents of these points only to provide relevant permissible information to the Appellant. In the event, information sought on these points found to be voluminous in nature, an opportunity of inspection of relevant records be provided in response to point No. 14, 15, 18 and 19 of instant RTI applications to the Appellant, on a mutually convenient date and Page 10 of 11 time within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Intimation of date and time should be informed to the Appellant well in advance in writing.
Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. Information which are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. The above-mentioned directions be complied by the PIO within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be also uploaded on the CIC's portal through the link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add.
11. No further relief can be granted in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Abbas Oanali Jiniya Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)