Central Information Commission
K. K. Sreenath vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 8 July, 2022
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/PAESO/A/2021/133197
K. K. Sreenath ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Petroleum and Explosives
Safety Organisation, RTI Cell,
C 2-IIIrd Floor, CGO Complex,
Kakkanad, Ernakulam-682037,
Kerala.
2. CPIO,
Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation,
Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives, RTI Cell,
A and D-Wing, Block 1-8, Second Floor,
Shastri Bhawan, 26, Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006, TamilNadu. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 07/07/2022
Date of Decision : 07/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 15/09/2020
First appeal filed on : 12/10/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 02/03/2021
1
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/06/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Whether any application for renewal of the License No.G/SC/KL/06/234 dated 03.10.2017 to store compressed gas in cylinders, issued in the name of Blue Flame Gas Agencies, No.12, TCC Shopping Complex, Eloor East, Ernakulam - 683 501 has been submitted before this office? If yes, provide a copy of the application and the documents produced along with the same.
2. Whether any lease deed/Lease Agreement has been produced by Mr. Jose Mampilly subsequent to the issuance of License No.G/SC/KL/06/234 dated 03.10.2017 for renewal of the same? If yes, provide copy of the same and the date of submission of the same.
3. Whether any affidavit has been filed by Mr. Jose Mampilly subsequent to the issuance of License No. G/SC/KL/06/234 dated 03.10.2017 for renewal of the same? If yes, provide copy of the same and the date of submission of the same.
4. Whether any application has been filed by Mr. Jose Mampilly, S/o Antony Mampilly, PAN No. AJLPM8946R, Palladium Pavilion Apartments, Marotichodu, Eappally, Kochi - 682 024 before this office for grant of license for storage of LPG Cylinders."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 15.09.2020 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 1 to 3:- The documents submitted by M/s. Blue Flame Gas Agencies, Ernakulam for renewal of licence No. G/SC/KL/06/234(G4694) are annexed, which include the application form, the lease agreement and the affidavit filed.
Point No. 4:- The licence was granted by the Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle xx Chennai on receipt of necessary documents by them.2
The Court fee stamp of Rs. 10/- submitted is returned, as it is not acceptable. Please submit Rs. 42/- towards the fee including fee for additional sheet @ for every sheet at www.bharatkosh.gov.in."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.10.2020 with Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization, Nagpur. FAA's order dated 02.03.2021 held as under:-
"The CPIO, O/o Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Cochin is hereby directed to obtain information related to the point No. 4 of the RTI application of the Appellant from the O/o Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle Chennai and forward the same to the appellant."
In compliance with the FAA's order, CPIO, O/o Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulum furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.03.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 4:- This office has now accessed the file No. G/SC/KL/06/234(G4694) (old File No. KL/227/LPG) of Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai. The documents submitted by Shri Jose Mampilly in 1987 for grant of licence is not available in the file."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds-
" ...(b) With respect to Point No.1, 2 and of the original application no answers or documents to that effect have been provided by Central Public lnformation Officer as well as by the 1st appellate authority.
(c) With respect to Point No.4 of the original application the first appellate authority had directed the Central Public lnformation Officer to give information related to point 4 of the RTI application. The Central Public lnformation Officer replied as the documents submitted by Sri. Jose Mampilly in 1987 for granting of licence is not available in the file.
The said reply is perverse and is purposeful evasion from furnishing the information by the Central Public lnformation Officer.
(d) The appellate authority has given an incomplete information which is against the spirit of the act.
3(e) The Central Public Information Officer as well as the first appellate authority has wilfully neglected in providing the answers sought by the appellant..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent(s): S Sarvanan, Dy. Controller of Explosives & Rep. of CPIO present through video-conference.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 30.06.2022, relevant portion of which is reproduced below in verbatim -
"....I. The CPIO, O/o Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam has provided all the available information on 24/09/2020 pertaining to the licence No. G/SC/KL/06/ 234(G4694) valid upto 30/09/2020 as per the information sought for by the applicant Shri K.K. Sreenath vide his letter No. Nil dated 10/09/2020. The renewal of the licence for the period from 01/102020 to 30/09/22 was done by M/s. Blue Flame Gas Agencies through online under auto renewal mode (introduced by the Organisation for the period from 24/08/2016 to 05/01/2021) on submission of online fee alone and no physical application/documents for renewal was submitted to this office. It is pertinent to mention here that the above licence was granted by the office of Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai in the year 1987 as per the delegation of power existing them. Subsequently, the power/authority for grant of licence was delegated to this sub circle office in the year 2016 and as of now continuing the same status. At the time of giving/providing information to the applicant the base file was not transferred by the Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai to this office. Hence the information sought by the applicant for point No.4 could not be provided.
3. The First Appellate Authority vide his letter No. R4(2)102/RTI/Appee1/20/63 dated 25/0212021 had directed to the CPIO O/o Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam to provide the information sought by the applicant for point No.4.
4. Base file for licence No. G/SC/KIJ06/ 234(04694) was received from the office of it.
Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle, Chennai by this office. The information pertaining to point No.4 was provided to the applicant on 10/03/2021 as per the information available in the file.
45. The CPIO, 0/0 Dy. Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam has provided the information sought for by the applicant promptly within 12 days of the receipt of the application. Similarly in obedience of the directions of First Appellate Authority, the information sought by the applicant for Point No.4 was provided within 8 days after receipt of First Appellate Authority letter dt. 02.03.2021. The contention of the applicant that the information was not provided is not true and justified. The CPIO has never purposefully evaded from furnishing the information."
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application is of the considered view that the queries raised by the Appellant do not strictly conform to Section 2(f), as he has sought for clarification from the CPIO based on interrogatories. In addition to it, it is also noteworthy that the license records of third party's have been sought by the Appellant which contains the elements of personal information of said third party and is directly hit by Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act.
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.
His attention is 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 5 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Also, with regards to applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act against information sought for, the Commission would also like to bring attention of the Appellant towards a judgement of the 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 while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act referred to the above discussed judgments and observed as under:
"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) Yet, ignoring the above said aspect, a point wise reply and subsequent further clarifications have been provided by the CPIO through his latest written submission is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7