Central Information Commission
Rahul Kaswan vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 14 October, 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.:- CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/120671-BJ
Mr. Rahul Kaswan
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
General Manager (OPPS)
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division, Delhi &Haryana State Office
2nd Floor, World Trade Centre, Babar Road
New Delhi - 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.10.2019
Date of Decision : 14.10.2019
Date of RTI application 28.11.2017
CPIO's response 11.01.2018
Date of the First Appeal 05.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 15.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.04.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 14 points inter alia regarding the name against which Raniya Gas Agency (Indane) was registered; number of subsidized gas connections distributed by the Raniya Gas Agency (Indane); name, address and other personal details of the individuals to whom subsidized gas cylinders were distributed, etc. The CPIO vide its letter dated 11.01.2018 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response on points 03, 04, 07, 09, 10, 11 and 12 of the RTI application, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 15.02.2018 while concurring with the response of the CPIO on points 04, 07, and 09 to 12 of the RTI application stated that with regard to point no. 03 the information sought was exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and that the information was also available on the website portal mylpg.in.Page 1 of 7
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Pawan Pareek, Advocate representing the Appellant through VC; Respondent: Ms. Rummana Qidwai, DGM (LPG-Sales), DSO;
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 09.10.2019 wherein while submitting that due to his ill-health he would be unable to attend the hearing, the Appellant authorized Shri Pawan Pareek, Advocate, District Court, Sirsa to appear on his behalf before the Commission. The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that points 03, 04, 07, 09, 10, 11 and 12 of his RTI application were not answered to the satisfaction of the Appellant. During the hearing, he specifically referred to points 03 and 04 of the RTI application and submitted that vide the aforementioned points, the Appellant had sought the name, address, etc of the consumers to whom subsidized gas cylinders were provided and the consumers who were provided the facility of cash and carry. The Appellant's representative also referred to points 09, 10 and 11 of the RTI application and submitted that the same fell within the purview of the definition of information. As regards point no. 12, the Appellant's representative submitted that the inspection report of the concerned gas agency was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that a point wise response was provided by the CPIO/ FAA wherein information on points 03 and 04 was not provided since it pertained to the personal information of the names and addresses of LPG consumers which was exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. As regards, point no. 07, the Respondent submitted that the relevant notifications concerning the LPG Consumers were already uploaded on their website which was intimated to the Appellant. With regard to points 09 to 11, the Respondent submitted that the same was in the nature of eliciting opinion which did not fall within the purview of the definition of information u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. As regards point no. 12, the Respondent re-iterated the reply of the CPIO that the information was personal in nature being exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) and that its disclosure could also adversely affect the commercial interest of the Third Party. On being queried if the Appellant had approached the Grievance Redressal Mechanism of the Public Authority, the Appellant's representative replied in the negative but submitted that suo motu disclosure of the information was in the larger public interest since all apprehensions regarding the irregularities in the affairs of the Gas Distributor/ Agency would be laid to rest. On a query to the Respondent, if the information regarding subsidized cylinders was provided to the M/o Petroleum and Natural Gas and the measures taken to keep a check on the issue of corruption in grant of subsidy, the Respondent submitted that all generic information relating to the number of individuals to whom subsidized cylinders were issued was provided to the Appellant and was also available on the website of the Ministry and that CAG audits were also carried out periodically to ensure accountability and prevent corruption.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset observed that the information sought in points 09 to 11 of the RTI application were clarificatory in nature which did not fall within the purview of the definition of information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, 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 Page 2 of 7 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:
"(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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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."
The Commission also 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, Page 3 of 7 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."
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 Page 4 of 7 Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
Moreover, the Commission observed that disclosure of personal details such as name, address, etc of individual customers as sought in points 03 and 04 of the RTI application would be in contravention to Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018wherein it was held as under:
"30. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
With regard to point no. 07 of the RTI application, the Commission observed that as per the reply of the CPIO, the information relating to the relevant guidelines/ circulars, etc pertaining to the interest of the LPG consumers was periodically uploaded on the website mylpg.in which was not contested by the Appellant or his representative. With regard to seeking information under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 when the same is suo motu disclosed in the public domain, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Prem Lata v. CIC PA 444/2012 & CM No. 10451/2012 Decided On: 27.02.2015 wherein it was held as under:
"20. The question which in our view thus arises is, whether information which has suo motu been made available by a public authority through various means of information including internet in fulfillment of its obligation under Section 4 of the RTI Act, can be requested for under Section 6 of the Act. If the answer to the said question is in the negative then the axiomatic question which arises is, whether the CPIO to whom such a request has nevertheless been made, is obliged under Section 7 of the Act to reject the said request by stating that the information sought has suo motu been made available by the public authority on internet and can be so accessed.
21. We, for the reasons following, are of the view that neither can information already suo motu made available by the public authority in discharge of obligations under Section 4 be requested for under Section 6 of the Act nor is the CPIO required to reject the said request giving the reason of the information having suo motu been made available on the internet.
22. The scheme of the RTI Act, in placement of various Sections thereof, clearly is to in the first instance require the public authorities to suo motu make available/accessible to the public as much information (in their possession and control) as possible by placing the same in public domain including on the internet and to thereafter devise a process to enable the public to request for/seek such information from the public authorities which the public authorities have not suo motu made available. This is evident particularly from Page 5 of 7 Section 4(2) supra which requires public authorities to constantly endeavour to provide as much information suo motu to the public through the medium including of internet so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information. The unequivocal meaning flowing thereform is that resort to the RTI Act to obtain information i.e. by requiring the public authorities under Section 5 to appoint CPIOs to deal with requests for information to be made under Section 6 is only qua the information which has suo motu not been so made available to the public by the public authority. Section 6 again provides that "a person who desires to obtain any information under this Act..." The same, read with "...so that public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information" in Section 4(2) can only mean that resort to Section 6 is permissible only for information not made available under Section 4. Unless the Act is so interpreted, the words "so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information" in Section 4(2) and the words "a person who desires to obtain any information under this Act" in Section 6 would be rendered otiose.
23. It even otherwise belies logic as to why Sections 5 to 7 providing for appointment of CPIOs, making of request for information and providing of information or rejection of request for information should be read as applicable also to the information which has already suo motu been made available by the public authority to the public at large and as to why the CPIOs should be required to, in response to a request under Section 6, again provide information which the public authority has suo motu made available on internet. Any other meaning or interpretation ascribed to the said provisions would render infructuous the obligation discharged by the public authority of suo motu making information available on internet. The Legislature, while enacting Section 4, obliging the public authority to suo motu make all information available, was fully aware of the high cost entailed in so making the information made available. Section 4(1)(a), while providing for computerisation by public authorities of all records, makes the same subject to availability of resources. To hold, that notwithstanding the public authority, at a huge expense, having suo motu made information available to the public at large, is also to be burdened with dealing with request for the same information, would amount to a huge waste of resources of the public authorities. Experience of operation of the Act for the last nearly ten years has shown that the officers of the public authorities designated as CPIOs have other duties also and the duty to be discharged by them as CPIO is an additional duty. It cannot also be ignored that dealing with request for information is a time consuming process. If it were to be held that information already made available under Section 4 will have to be again provided under Sections 6 & 7, it will on the one hand not advance the legislative intent in any way and on the other hand may allow Page 6 of 7 misuse of the provisions of the Act for extraneous reasons and allowing harassment of CPIOs by miscreants.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant was advised to approach a 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: 14.10.2019
Page 7 of 7