Central Information Commission
Amresh Chandra Mathur vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 10 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IOCLD/C/2021/640871
Amresh Chandra Mathur ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Oil Corporation
Limited, (Marketing Division),
UP State Office-II, RTI Cell,
E-8, Sector-1, Noida, Uttar P
Pradesh-2012301 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/01/2023
Date of Decision : 05/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 01/09/2021
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/09/2021
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.08.2021 seeking the following information:1
In respect to AUTO CARE IOCL pump SH Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad and petroleum rule 2002 kindly provide following information sought is related to handling of explosives i.e. life of persons because of deviations visible on the ground:
1. Name of the responsible agent or supervisor in terms of rule 118 of petroleum rule.
2. Name of the responsible agent or supervisor or person/official who will ensure compliance of condition 13 mentioned in Form XVI petroleum rule 2002.
3. Other purposes for which permission has been granted by Chief Controller as per rule 122 petroleum Rule 2002.
4. Nature of Fencing/boundary wall written in certificate for safety part G issued as per rule 130 Petroleum rue 2002
5. If rule 131 is applicable in respect Indian Oil Petrol service located Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad, then details as available with PESO in respect of rule 131(iii)
6. Copy of report submitted by IOCL official who visited the petrol pump along with official of Weights & Measures official in respect of Complaint(copy enclose)
7. Record reason of service station machine issuing receipt of FP 3 nozzle 11(copy of receipt enclosed) whereas petrol was supplied through FP4 nozzle 15 and when protested Mr Jha of petrol pump showed physically readings in the computer displaying that 10 litre petrol has been dispensed through FP 4 nozzle 15.
8. Name of the person who programmed computer system of the service station in a manner that for dispensing through FP 4 nozzle 15 receipts issued will show dispensing through FP 3 nozzle 11.
9. Action taken by IOCL representative when AUTO CARE IOCL pump SH Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad could not prove in presence of IOCL representatives, weights and measure representative and complainant and others, on 26 July, 2 2021 that petrol dispensed through FP 4 nozzle 15 is not as per legal metrology standards.
10.recorded reason for 6 days delay (Complaint dated 21-07-2021 attended on 26-07-2021) especially when it relates to short delivery of petrol.
11. Quantity of petrol dispensed through FP 4 nozzle 15 after the receipt of complaint on 21-7-2021 till its inspection on 26-07-2021.
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 01.09.2021 stating as under:-
3Being dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Manoj Gupta, GM (HR) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Complainant invited attention of the bench towards his latest written submission filed prior to hearing, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -4
"....Mere perusal of the information sought and relevant petroleum rules (Annexure 2) clearly establishes that information sought is regulatory and is directly related to life (Safety) of person visiting the petrol pump/ persons living/working in the vicinity of service station (petrol pump) which is clearly has a relationship with public activity e.g.
118. Supervision of operations within an installation, service station or storage shed.- All operations within an installation, service station or storage shed shall be conducted under supervision of an experienced responsible agent or supervisor who is conversant with the terms and conditions of the licence held for the installation, service station or storage shed as the case may be and those persons should have proper safety training
121. Exclusion of unauthorized persons.- (1) The protected area surrounding every installation and storage shed shall be surrounded by a wall or fence of at least 1.8 metres in height.
(2) In case of service station 1.2 metre high boundary wall or fence on sides other than the drive way shall be provided. (3) Precautions shall be taken to prevent unauthorized persons from having access to any storage shed or installation.
122. Petroleum only to be stored. -
No installation, service station or storage shed shall, without permission in writing from the Chief Controller be used for any purpose other than the storage and distribution of petroleum and for purpose directly connected therewith.as mandated in Petroleum Rules Responding CPIO/ CPIO who denied the information has cited a CIC order with malafide intention to protect the identity persons responsible for ensuring compliance of licence conditions. The information sought is regulatory and is directly related to safety of life of consumers who visit service station (petrol pump)/ persons in the vicinity of service station and thus directly related to public activity as well as public interest Le ensuring compliance of licence conditions.
2 Responding CPIO's WS dated 26-12-2022 on Merit, regarding query 6-9 of the RTI application is misleading where-in Responding CPIO states queries pertain 5 to a report that has been supplied. Query 6-9 of the RTI application are reproduced below: Copy of report submitted by IOCL official who visited the petrol pump along with official of Weights & Measures Official in respect of complaint (copy enclosed) Recorded reason of service station machine issuing receipt of FP3 nozzle 11 (copy of receipt enclosed) whereas petrol was supplied through FP 4 nozzle 15 and when protested Mr Jha of petrol pump showed physically readings in the computer displaying that 10 litre petrol has been dispensed through FP 4 nozzle 15 Name of the person who programmed computer system of the 8 service station in a manner that for dispensing through FP 4 nozzle 15 receipts issued will show dispensing through FP 3 nozzle
11. Action taken by IOCL representative when AUTO CARE IOCL pump SH Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad could not prove in presence of IOCL representative, weights and measures representative and complainant and others on 26 July 2021 that petrol dispensed 9.through FP 4 nozzle 15 is not as per legal metrology standards.
With malafide intention CPIO has provided unsigned/ undated report to hide the name of signatories of the report which is not even certified by CPIO as per DOPT guidelines. Malafide intention is i. the signed report will indicate that report has not been prepared in the presence of the Complainant as it bears no signature of the complainant although undated report indicates presence of complainant during inspection. ii. Uncertified report as per DOPT guidelines, provided by CPIO under RTI, is a useless paper in the eyes of law iii. Complete information will reflect IOCL officials indulgence in malpractices at the service station (petrol pump) that different unit was inspected and undated report of different unit was prepared for record purpose.
Responding CPIO has choosen not to enclose in WS dated 26-12-2022 to Commission even the unsigned/ undated report.
3 CPIO WS dated 26-12-2022 on Merit, regarding query 10 of the RTI application is misleading where in he has attempted to bring in definition of information u/s 2f Query 10 of the RTI application are reproduced below:
610 Recorded reason for 6 days delay (Complaint dated 21-07-2021 attended on 26-07-2021) specially when it related to short delivery of petrol CPIO denying information quoting definition of information section 2f is malafide.
Information sought was Recorded reason.
If there is no record CPIO should simply give information that no record is available.
4 CPIO WS dated 26-12-2022 on Merit, regarding query 11 of the RTI application is misleading by stating it is a commercial information seeking exemption u/son 8(1) (d). Query 11 of the RTI application are reproduced below:
11. Quantity of petrol dispensed through FP 4 nozzle 15 after the receipt of complaint on 21-07-2021 till its inspection on 26-07-2021.
Rules say whenever a defect is dispensing unit is noticed, petrol outlet dealer will stop dispensing from that unit xxx 3- Marketing discipline of Indian Oil. It is in larger Public interest that information sought should have been provided because it will clearly reflect whether Marketing discipline was followed or not after the complaint and even after the inspection by IOCL officials when it was clearly demonstrated that pump unit which was inspected is/was not delivering petrol as indicated on the meter and auto cut was also not working (As indicated in the unsigned/undated report). This issue will be clearly visible on the video footage that must be awailable with IOCL official/petrol pump dealer unless destroyed.
5 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the matter of Dr. Deepak Juneja vs Central [17:06, 05/01/2023] Legal Professional: 3 CPIO WS dated 26-12-2022 on Merit, regarding query 10 of the RTI application is misleading where in he has attempted to bring in definition of information u/s 2f Query 10 of the RTI application are reproduced below:
10 Recorded reason for 6 days delay (Complaint dated 21-07-2021 attended on 26-07-2021) specially when it related to short delivery of petrol CPIO denying information quoting definition of information section 2f is malafide.
Information sought was Recorded reason.
7If there is no record CPIO should simply give information that no record is available.
4 CPIO WS dated 26-12-2022 on Merit, regarding query 11 of the RTI application is misleading by stating it is a commercial information seeking exemption u/son 8(1) (d). Query 11 of the RTI application are reproduced below:
11. Quantity of petrol dispensed through FP 4 nozzle 15 after the receipt of complaint on 21-07-2021 till its inspection on 26-07-2021.
Rules say whenever a defect is dispensing unit is noticed, petrol outlet dealer will stop dispensing from that unit (See Annexure 3- Marketing discipline of Indian Oil). It is in larger Public interest that information sought should have been provided because it will clearly reflect whether Marketing discipline was followed or not after the complaint and even after the inspection by IOCL officials when it was clearly demonstrated that pump unit which was inspected is/was not delivering petrol as indicated on the meter and auto cut was also not working (As indicated in the unsigned/undated report). This issue will be clearly visible on the video footage that must be awailable with IOCL official/petrol pump dealer unless destroyed.
5 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the matter of Dr. Deepak Juneja vs Central Information Commission 29 April, 2019 in WP (C) 11489 of 2016, that clearly explained the difference between section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act 2005.
6 CIC u/s 18 has powers to examine the conduct of CPIOs as a civil court."
In conclusion, the Complainant vehemently contested the inaction of the Respondent organization in denial of information ignoring the public interest and prayed the Commission that the CPIO should be penalized for alleged withholding the information sought.
In response to Complainant's contentions, the CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Complainant. He further apprised the Commission that details pertaining to the name of the dealers, inspection officers/ sales officers are always displayed at the outlets of 8 IOCL which can be easily accessed. In response to it, the CPIO denied the version of the Appellant by contesting that the details of the oversight officer / supervisors are not available in public domain which should ideally be made public in order to maintain transparency and probity in the system as such officers carries out public functions.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the information sought by the Complainant majorly does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also contains the elements of personal information including personal details of concerned officers which is hit by Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Complainant 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.
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] wherein 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) Furthermore, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, attention of the Complainant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 9 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply coupled with relevant permissible information provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought by the Complainant in terms of RTI Act.
Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Complainant for initiating penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the 10 information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also notes that Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up 11 information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty."
Having observed as above and considering the inability of the Complainant in substantiating his level of dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply in the instant Complaint, no further action is warranted in the instant matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 12