Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Malkeet Pal Singh Bhullar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 30 May, 2022

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/IOCLD/A/2020/686016

Mr. Malkeet Pal Singh Bhuller                           ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                   VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO                                                     ...!ितवादी/Respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Marketing Division, Retail State Office
Delhi & Haryana, 2nd Floor, World Trade
Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 03-07-2020           FA    : 10-08-2020         SA      : 18-09-2020

CPIO : 14-07-2020          FAO : 26-08-2020           Hearing : 23-05-2022

                                 ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on various points including inter-alia is as under:-

Etc. Page 1 of 3

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 14-07-2020 reply is as under "Point No. 1 information provided and Point no. 2 denied under section 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 and point no. 3, 4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14 denied under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 10-08-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 26-08-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant was represented through his representative Shri K P Singh who was personally present in the hearing. The respondent, Shri Rajpal Singh, DGM (Operations) was personally present in the hearing.

4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.

5. The representative of the appellant submitted that complete information has not been provided to the appellant on his RTI application dated 03.07.2020.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 14.07.2020, point- wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the appellant along with tender documents and copy of ITDG.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that some queries of the appellant are in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO and he has expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

8. Nonetheless, the respondent has given point-wise reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application. The Commission is satisfied with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application of the Page 2 of 3 appellant. The appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

10. 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 : 23-05-2022
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.   CPIO
     Indian Oil Corporation Limited
     Marketing Division, Retail State Office
     Delhi & Haryana, 2nd Floor,
     World Trade Centre, Babar Road,
     New Delhi-110001

2.    Mr. Malkeet Pal Singh Bhullar




                                                                      Page 3 of 3