Central Information Commission
J K Sharma vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 23 January, 2020
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/2018/146874-BJ
Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO &General Manager In-Charge (LPG)
UPSO - II, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division, UPSO - II
E - 8, Sector - 1, Noida - 201301
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2020
Date of Decision : 23.01.2020
Date of RTI application 26.12.2017
CPIO's response 16.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 20.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 13.06.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 25.07.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points with regard to the number of Rural LPG connections that had been transferred from Gangoh Gas Agency to Ekta Indane Gas Agency in the year 2017 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.02.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.06.2018, stated that the information supplied by the CPIO was incomplete and directed it to provide the complete information under the Act.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Dileep Jauhari, Chief Manager (LPG) and Ms. Namita Kumari, Sr. Manager;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the details of the gas consumer including their names, address etc. as sought in the RTI application was not provided by Page 1 of 5 the Respondent, till date. While alleging irregularity and corruption in the working of the M/s Gangoh Gas Agency in connivance with the public authority officials, the Appellant submitted that he had also approached the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, CVC and C&AG however no action to his satisfaction had been initiated, till date. Furthermore, the order of the FAA dated 13.06.2018 directing the CPIO to disclose the information had not been complied, till date. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the information held and available on record had been provided by the CPIO / FAA and that the Appellant was in the habit of filing multiple RTI applications on similar issues without any larger public interest. It was also submitted that the issue regarding the territorial limit of Gangoh Gas Agency had been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in W. P. No. 21471/ 2017 dated 17.05.2017 and the directions of the Court had been complied with by the Public Authority vide order dated 20.12.2017 a certified copy of which was already provided to the Appellant. It was confirmed that the officials of C&AG had visited their office and all the necessary papers sought by them had been provided to them. Furthermore, it was submitted that subsequent to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad the classification of M/s Gangoh Gas Agency had been modified to Urban Category. The Appellant vehemently denied the receipt of the certified copy of the document and prayed for its disclosure.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 15.01.2020 wherein at the outset it was stated that the Appellant had filed 8 RTI applications during 2017-18 seeking information against the LPG distributorship in question M/s Gangoh Gas Agency. While re- iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA, the Respondent stated that pending compliance of the order of the FAA, two more RTI applications of the same Appellant on the same issue were received and had been replied vide letters dated 21.06.2018 and 08.02.2018. Furthermore, it was stated that the instant Appeal was not maintainable for the reason that under RTI Act there was no provision for redressal of personal grievance and that the Appellant had failed to establish the public interest in seeking such information (Order dated 01.07.2009 passed in WP (C) 803/2009; Vijay Prakash vs UOI and Ors (Delhi High Court) and CIC order in Appeal No 608/IC(A)/2007 dated 03.04.2007. Furthermore, it was stated that with reference to transfer of gas connections a number of writ petitions had been pending in various courts including WP No 34298/2019 M/s Baghpat Gas Service vs UOI and Ors in Allahabad High Court and decision of the High Court of Madras in WP No 24844, 46, 47 and 49 of 2019 also passed stay orders in similar matters. With respect to queries 01 to 03, it was stated that the Appellant had sought reason for non-transfer of the gas connections from one particular gas agency to another gas agency which was provided.. The Second Part of Query No 03 did not fall under the ambit of the term "information" as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that they had also offered inspection of the concerned records to the Appellant. In respect of query 4 as well a suitable reply was provided to the Appellant. Thus, it was stated that it was their endeavour to implement RTI Act in letter and spirit. However, the delay that occurred in replying to the RTI Application was regretted.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
Page 2 of 5"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had 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 information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
As regards providing the certified copy of the documents to the Appellant, the Commission referred to the DoP&T in its OM No. No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015 had stated as under:
"2. In addition, wherever the applicant has requested for 'certified copies' of the documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document "True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act", sign the document with .date, above a seal containing name of the officer, CPIO and name of public authority."
The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in John Numpeli v. The PIO in W.P. (C) No. 31947 of 2012 (P) dated 31.01.2017 had held as under:
"I also find no merit or force in the contention of the respondents that grant of certified copies may give authenticity to the documents which may not be genuine or even fabricated.Page 3 of 5
In the event of an applicant's request for information being granted all that the Public Information Officer would have to do is to certify that the copy is one issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He is not called upon to certify that it is a copy of a genuine document. I therefore, find no reason why the first relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
I accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the first respondent to issue a fresh set of documents sought for in Ext.P1 application other than the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department on the petitioner paying the requisite fees and to certify the copies as copies issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The needful in the matter shall be done and copies of documents issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
Moreover, the Commission observed that several other Second Appeals / Complaints filed by the Appellant on similar issues pertaining to M/s Gangoh Gas Agency had been heard and adjudicated in CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/111295 dated 06.06.2018, CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/111298 dated 06.06.2018 etc. The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."Page 4 of 5
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
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.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the Commission instructs the Respondent to provide certified copies of the documents sought in the RTI application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. No other intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands 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: 23.01.2020
Page 5 of 5