Central Information Commission
Madan Gopal Sharma vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 10 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/154149
Shri Madan Gopal Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)
Date of Hearing : 10.01.2024
Date of Decision : 10.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.04.2022
PIO replied on : 26.07.2022
First Appeal filed on : 16.08.2022
First Appellate Order on : 20.09.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 21.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"a) Please provide name of work and name of contractor where M-sand had been used in construction work As per Chief Secretary Govt of Rajasthan order no 4241 dt 13-3-2021, in light of implement M-sand policy 2020 dt 25-1-2021 sub para 11 directed to use 25% to 50% M-sand in Govt construction work.
b) What is approved quarry for coarse aggregates and river sand/M-sand for Jodhpur 3x600 MT LPG Bottling plant Ujaliya and other works.
c) Provide NOC taken from Mining & Geology Dept regarding availability /Unavailability of M-sand with in 100 km area of construction work.
d) Provide on line E-Rawana of respective work/contract of river sand/M-
sand & Coarse aggregates with GST invoices used in construction work and testing report of M- sand/River sand given by NABL lab.
e) Provide GST invoices and mining royalty receipt of rives sand used by various concerned contractors."
f) All contractors are using highly alkaline river sand having tremendous chloride and sulphates (Luni River) failed to comply IS-383, illegal mining, without GST and royalty invoices, white spott of white salt shown on masonary, paver blocks flooring, concrete and other work. This highly salted sand made concrete and its products too weak to sustain its life. For Page 1 of 3 allowing this poor work what action taken against Project Management Consultants, please make available documents or payment detail in which part payment allowed or penalty imposed in view of poor work.
g) Please make available specification of M-sand as per your tender documents in which. M-sand parameters like Silt contents, Zone of gradation as per IS-383,, FM, specific gravity, bulk density etc and test report, GST invoices and NABL testing report of supplied M-sand.
h) The contractors are allowed crusher dust having silt more than 20%-30% as M-sand at Ujaliya, Bottling plant ongoing work, kindly provide tender documents specification & type of work where this crusher dust used or allowed."
The CPIO, CGM(POPS), IOCL, Jaipur vide letter dated 26.07.2022 provided point- wise information to the appellant, as under :
1. Required information cannot be shared as per RTI Act 2005, Section: 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j).
2. Required information cannot be shared as per RTI Act 2005, Section: 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j).
3. Required Information cannot be provided to applicant as the same is held under fiduciary relationship & is exempted under section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act 2005.
4. Information Sought "on line E-Rawana of respective work/contract of river sand/M-sand & Coarse aggregates with GST Invoices used in construction work " is not available with us . While testing report of M-sand/River sand given by NABL lab cannot be shared as per RTI Act 2005, Section: 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j).
5. Information Sought is not available with us
6. he query is based on hypothetical premises, which cannot be considered under section 2[f).However, all materials has been used as per tender specification and tested from NABL Labs as per QAP and reviewed by Project management Consultant and IOCL
7. Sand specifications as per tender documents are attached as Annexure-A. The test report GST invoices and NABL testing report of supplied M-sand cannot be shared as per RTI Act 2005, Section: 8(1)d & 8(1)j
8. The query is based on hypothetical premises, which cannot be considered under section 2(f) However, tender document specifications are attached.."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2022. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2022 upheld the CPIO's reply.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 03.01.2024 has been received from CPIO/CGM(Ops), IOCL, Jaipur reiterating the aforementioned facts and same has been taken on record.
Page 2 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present via VC Respondent: 1. Mr. B.K. Sharma, CGM(Ops), IOCL, Jaipur via VC
2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, DGM(Contract/Marketing), Mumbai via VC The Appellants stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the information has been incorrectly denied under the garb of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Appellant from their official record. He stated that the Appellant is one of the vendor and is taking refuge of RTI Applications to settle his scores. He stated that point-wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant and tender documents specifications and sand specifications as per tender documents has been duly furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO, CGM(Ops), IOCL, Jaipur to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3