Central Information Commission
Yogesh Kumar Malik vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 10 June, 2019
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.(s):- CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609181-BJ +
CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609234-BJ +
CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609237-BJ +
CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609241-BJ
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Malik
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Territory Manager LPG - Lalru
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Territory Office & LPG Bottling Plant
Lalru P. O. Tiwana, Dist. Mohali - 140501
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2019
Date of Decision : 10.06.2019
ORDER
RTI 1: CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609181-BJ Date of RTI application 16.09.2017 CPIO's response 17.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 04.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the guideline based on which the Alternate Educational Degree from Manav Bharti University of Sh. Rajkumar was considered and LOI dated 18.03.2016 was issued for the location of Panchkula, Category O (GP, Date of Advertisement 20.11.2013.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.09.2019 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the matter was under investigation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
Page 1 of 5
RTI 2: CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609234-BJ
Date of RTI application 15.09.2017
CPIO's response 17.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal 03.11.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 04.12.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought copy of letter dated 11.08.2017 regarding withdrawal of letter of intent dated 18.03.2016 of Sh. Rajkumar for the location of Panchkula, Category O (GP, Date of Advertisement 20.11.2013).
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.07.2019 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the matter was under investigation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
RTI 3: CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609237-BJ Date of RTI application 16.09.2017 CPIO's response 17.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 04.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the copy of marksheet of EIILM University and Manav Bharti University as submitted by Sh. Rajkumar for at the time of FVC for the location of Panchkula. Haryana, Date of Advertisement 20.11.2013.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.09.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant denying information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
RTI 4: CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609241-BJ Date of RTI application 16.09.2017 CPIO's response 17.09.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 04.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the copy of the letter sent by the FVC Team (Smt. Sandhya Singh) to the Directorate of Education, Sikkim, Page 2 of 5 EIILM University for verification of Educational Degree/ Marksheet submitted by Sh. Rajkumar, copy of verification letter as sent by the Directorate of Education, Sikkim/ EIILM University to the FVC Team (after verification of EIILM Degree/ Marksheets submitted by Sh. Rajkumar.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.09.2019 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the matter was under investigation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Mainak Mukherjee, Territory Manager (LPG) - Hisar & CPIO, in person;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Sahil, Network Engineer NIC studio at Hisar confirmed the absence of the Appellant. Since all the matters broadly pertained to the issue of verification of educational qualifications of one Mr. Rajkumar who was alleged to have been allotted distributorship based on production of false educational documents, the matters were clubbed together and a common order is passed hereunder. The Respondent re-iterated the reply of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submissions. While explaining the background of the matter, the Respondent submitted that the distributorship granted to the Appellant was revoked by the Competent Authority on account of submitting false educational documents. On investigation, due to the incorrectness of the documents, the Appellant's distributorship was revoked. Therefore, in retaliation while alleging that arbitrary treatment was meted out to him as compared to another applicant in the name of Mr. Rajkumar enclosing false educational documents whose application was favourably considered by the Respondent Public Authority, the Appellant filed the instant RTI application to prove his bonafides. While referring to their replies in Appeal Nos CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609181-BJ, CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609237-BJ and CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609241-BJ, the Respondent stated that initially the information sought was denied u/s 8 (1) (h) since the investigation in the matter was pending. Subsequently, on completion of the vigilance action/ investigation, it was found that allotment was incorrectly made based on the alternate degree submitted by Mr. Rajkumar which was in contravention to their extant guidelines. Hence, the distributorship allotted to said Mr. Rajkumar was revoked. However, it was clarified that the degree in itself was not found to be fake as alleged by the Appellant and that the updated status in the matter was also conveyed to him. With regard to Appeal No CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609237-BJ, the Respondent submitted that the marksheets sought by the Appellant pertained to a Third Party (Mr. Rajkumar) and in the absence of any larger public interest being highlighted by the Appellant, the same could not be disclosed u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On being queried by the Commission if the investigation in the matter was completed, as on date and if so, whether the information available on record except the personal information of the Third Party such as his Marksheet could be disclosed to the Appellant, the Respondent replied in the affirmative and agreed to share all other information except the marksheets of the Third Party to the Appellant, if so directed by the Commission.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 06.06.2019 in all the matters wherein the reply of the CPIO/ FAA was re-iterated.
Page 3 of 5Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission without commenting on the antecedents/ intention of the Appellant for seeking the information observed that it was on the basis of the Complaint filed by the Appellant that the Respondent Public Authority discovered the irregularity in the allotment of LPG distributorship to Mr Rajkumar which was a matter of larger public interest. Hence, all the information regarding the LPG distributorship except personal information of the distributor should be permitted to be disclosed to the information seeker. In this context, the Commission referred to a similar matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Arti Devi vs. CIC and Ors Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21397/ 2011 dated 25.09.2012 wherein while deciding an RTI application seeking a copy of the application form submitted by one Smt. Vijaya Mishra for the allotment of LPG distributorship at Tamkuhiraj, Dist. Kushinagar, and income certificate of Smt. Vijaya Mishra's and income certificate of Dr. Ramesh Tiwari, the husband of Smt. Vijaya Mishra, it was held as under:
"18. The information which was required by the petitioner certainly had relationship with the public activity or interest of the Indian Oil Corporation as it had awarded the LPG distribution ship to Smt. Vijaya Mishra on the basis of the facts stated in the application.
19. The authorities were not justified in withholding such information by taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the orders dated 9th April, 2009, 9th July, 2009 and 13th May, 2010. They are, accordingly, set aside."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest"
held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Page 4 of 5Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
However, with regard to disclosing the marksheets of the Third Party, the Commission observed that in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI applications and furnish point wise information to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 except copies of the Marksheets of the Third Party within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 10.06.2019
Page 5 of 5