Central Information Commission
R S Murali vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 17 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/2022/124605
R S Murali अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN
RESOURCES), INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING
DIVISION: KARNATAKA STATE
OFFICE, RTI CELL, INDIAN OIL
BHAVAN, NO.29, P KALINGA RAO
ROAD, (MISSION ROAD),
BENGALURU-560027, KARNATAKA. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/03/2023
Date of Decision : 15/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 17/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 10/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 18/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19/05/2022
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 17.12.2021 stating as under:
Particulars Reply
A. Relating to Meenakshi Filling Station situated
at Survey No. 175 & 176, Bilekahalli,
Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore -- 560076
1. Partnership Deed Your query seeking copies of SI. No. 1
2. Proposed Partnership Deed to 12 listed under A. in particulars of
3. Lease Agreement this letter seeks information held by
4. Firm Registration Indian Oil under fiduciary relationship
5. All Account Transaction (Loads, Monthly and commercially sensitive in nature,
Gross Income, Monthly Net Income) hence, the information is not being
6. All other related documents available for provided as per Para 8 (1) (e) & Para
Meenakshi Filling Station 8(1) (d) under RTI Act. 2005.
7. Cancellation Request for business entity
8. All notices, reminders sent or received
9. Proof of lease payments made to the
landlord of the land
10. Documents relating to Change of Business
Entity name giving reasons for the same
and the order passed thereon by IOC
11.Copies of all the available documents
relating to Meenakshi Filling Station
12. Proceedings of the interview conducted for
the dealership of Meenakshi Filling Station
Particulars Reply
B. Relating to Krshna Petrol Junction situated at
Survey No. 175 & 176, Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta
Road, Bangalore -- 560076
Your query seeking copies of SI. No. 1
I. Partnership Deed to 10 listed under B. in particulars of
2. Proposed Partnership Deed this letter seeks information held by
3 Lease Agreement Indian Oil under fiduciary relationship
4. Firm Registration and commercially sensitive in nature,
5. All Account Transaction (Loads, Monthly Gross hence, the information is not being 2 Income. Monthly Net Income) provided as per Para 8 (1) (e) & Para
6. All other related documents available for 8(1) (d) under RTI Act. 2005. Krshna Petrol Junction.
7. All notices, reminders sent or received
8. Proof of lease payments made to the landlord of the land
9. Copies of all the available documents relating to Krshna Petrol Junction
10. Proceedings of the Interview conducted 1hr the dealership of Krshna Petrol Junction Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2022. FAA's order, dated 18.02.2022, held as under:
"I have gone through the contents of RTI Application, reply of the Respondent PIO and Grounds of Appeal. I am of the opinion that the exemption claimed by the Respondent PIO do not hold good as no harm would be caused in sharing the information after severing the commercially sensitive information under the provisions of The RTI Act, 2005.
In view of the above, the Respondent PIO is directed to reexamine the RTI reply and provide the information as under the provisions of The RTI Act, 2005 shall be provided within 15 days from receipt of this order."
In compliance with FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a revised point wise reply to the Appellant on 23.02.2022.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Robert D'souza present through video- conference.
Respondent: N Nair, CPIO present through video-conference.3
The Advocate of the Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO on the following arguments -
"...2. The Appellant's father R. Sheshaiah Naidu was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land comprised In Sy. Nos -- 175 & 176 of Bilekahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk. It was a joint family property devolved upon R. Sheshaiah Naidu. The land is in the joint possession of all the members of the Joint Hindu Family consisting of R. Sheshaiah Naidu, the Appellant, R. Ravi Kumar, R. S Ramesh, R.S. Mohan.
3. All the sons of R. Sheshaiah Nadu with the consent of their father started a family business of running a petrol bunk in the aforesaid land. During 2000-2001 they banned a partnership firm in the name and style of Meenakshi filling Station.
After the formation of the partnership, the Appellant and his brothers approached the Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Karnataka State Office with a request to supply petrol, oil, etc., to run the petrol bunk business. The 101 held discussions with the Appellant and the other brothers and agreed to take the aforesaid land on Pease paying rent for the leased property and supply of petrol and its products to run the business on the basis of Company Owned Company Operated (COCO] outlet. Thereafter, the Appellant and his other brothers started the petrol bunk partnership business with effect from 31-12-2002.
4. The sales business was being run smoothly but, the Appellant was not given his share of the business income. He kept mum as it is a family concern. However, in the year 2005 or thereabout two of the brothers of the Appellant namely R. Ravi Kumar and R. S. Ramesh, stopped giving any information about the petrol bunk business and the collection of the revenue to the Appellant. They also asked him not to step in to the business premises stating the business no longer belonged to him and he has no manner of any right over it. In this situation, the Appellant approached their father R. Sheshaiah Naidu who despite his best efforts could not solve the problem. All the documents relating to the petrol bunk business ware in the possession and custody of Sri. R. Ravi Kumar and Sri. R. S. Ramesh who are in charge of the business. It is also relevant to mention here that even though it was a partnersnip business, the Appellant was not paid the income of his share. The two brothers of the Appellant played fraud on him and siphoned off the entire profit earned from the business and cheated him. On the one hand Sri. R. Ravi Kumar and R.S. Barnes', became richer and richer while the Appellant wallowed in poverty, not able to make both ends meet. His financial condition reached a stage where the entire family of the Appellant was on the street without any money for 4 his sustenance. The Appellant was totally shattered and he was not knowing what was happening in the business.
5. In this situation the Appellant filed RTI Application on 15.11.2021 seeking information relating to M/s Meenakshi Filling Station. The PLO at the first instance declined to grant the information sought for by the Appellant, Invoking the ground under section &1$O) and 841)1e) of the RTI Act stating the information is held in fiduciary relationship and it is commercially sensitive in nature. Both the grounds taken up by the PIO are absolutely wrong and unsustainable. The PIO wrongly interpreted and incorrectly applied the principles of 'fiduciary relationship and to commercially sensitive'.
6. Thereafter, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Respondent Appellate Authority.First Appellate Authority without any opportunity to the Appellant held that exemption claimed by the PIO does not hold good as no harm would be caused in sharing the information after severing the commercially sensitive information.
7. Thereafter, the PIO supplied four documents to the Appellant. The other Information like the lease agreement executed by the partners, account transactions relating to the petrol bunk business, and the lease/portal payments sought for by the Appellant was denied to him wrongly on the ground that they are commercially sensitive.
8. The Appellant, R. Ravi Kumar, R. S. Ramesh and R. S. Mohan are brothers being the VMS of R. Shesnaiah Naidu. It was on the basis of joint application given by the Appel:ant and his other brothers that the petrol bunk business was allotted to Me partnership firm. Sri. R. Ravi Kumar and R. S Ramesh were looking after the family business. So all being connected to the same business them is no question of invoking the ground of fiduciary relationship or the ground of commercially sensitivity information. Hence, the order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.
9. In the instant case the COCO business is a partnership business of the joint family of R. Sheshaiah Naidu. If some partners of the partnership seek certain information/ document, the authority concerned cannot take shelter under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and deny the information. It is also incorrect to brand the Appellant as a third party in as much as the Appellant is a stake holder and eventually he would be liable for the assets and 5 liabilities of the partnership firm and its income and laws and further answerable to the laws of the land like the other partners.
10. The Appellant submits that both the orders suffer from the principles of natural justice in as much as there was no personal hearing afforded to the Appellant...."
In response to contentions of the Rep. of Appellant, the CPIO explained that the firm Meenakshi Filling Station was appointed as a job contractor for operating a 'Company Owner Company Operated' (COCO) outlet at Bilekakahalli, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore on temporary basis and was certainly not an IOCL dealer. She furthermore submitted that the averred Retail outlet(job contractor) was converted into a 'dealership Outlet ' in line with the 'Corporation policy & guidelines' and awarded to the nominees of the landowner, Sheshiah Naidu (F/o. Appellant) who had nominated his two sons namely, Mr. R Ravi Kumar & R S Ramesh for award of the dealership. The R.O. was commissioned under the name M/s. Krshna Petro Junction and dealership agreement executed between the two partners R Ravikumar and R S Ramesh. Lastly, she explained that since the Appellant has no locus standi in Krshna Petro Junction; therefore, information cannot be shared with him in view of Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties at length observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance against alleged creation of a partnership firm without considering his name on which he sought further clarifications from the CPIO.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO given by the CPIO now is as per the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
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:6
"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 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] where in 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any 7 information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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." (Emphasis Supplied) Moreover, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a 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:8
"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) Having observed as above, no scope of further relief lies in the matter.
However, 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