Central Information Commission
Rustom Irani vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 11 December, 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/2018/621992-BJ+
CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/627364-BJ
Mr. Rustom Dinshaw Irani
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & DGM (T&D and Admin)
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Mumbai Refinery, Mahul
Mumbai - 400074
2. CPIO & DGM
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Petroleum House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road
P.O Box No. 11041, Mumbai - 400020
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.12.2019
Date of Decision : 11.12.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/621992-BJ Date of RTI application 12.03.2018 CPIO's response 30.03.2018 Date of the First Appeal 12.04.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 15.05.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 2 points related to the due diligence report and/or report as called or named, enumerating and satisfying receipt of all papers and documents including agreements entered by and between Governments of State of Page 1 of 5 Maharashtra and Central Government in possession of Messer Burmah Shell Refineries Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited related to the period of 1948 to until now.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.03.2018 stated that no records of such diligence report was available. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 15.05.2018, concurred with the CPIO's response.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/627364-BJ Date of RTI application 12.03.2018 CPIO's response 12.04.2018 Date of the First Appeal 04.05.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 2 points inter alia regarding the total number of due diligence report in respect of Mumbai properties of "Esso Standard Refining Company of India Limited" enumerating and satisfying the receipt of all papers and documents including agreements entered by and between Govt. of State of Maharashtra and Central Govt. in possession of predecessor Messer Esso Standard Refining Company in satisfaction to Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 and, inspection and copies of the same.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.04.2018 while referring to earlier decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2017/139231dated 08.03.2018, stated that the information sought was not available with the Corporation and therefore the same could not be provided. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Shirin Irani Appellant's representative, through VC; Respondent: Mr. E. Rozario, GM (Admin.), MR & CPIO, BPCL and Mrs. Usha Popat, Chief Manager (RTI) and Nodal Officer, BPCL and Mr. S. A. Dhakshinamurthy, GM-Legal (Refineries) & CPIO, HPCL through VC;
The Appellant's representative informed the Commission that the Applicant had since expired and that she was representing in both the matters. At the outset, she expressed her reservations about the background of the two Appeals filed by her father and requested for some time to understand the basis of filing these Appeals. In its reply, the Respondent informed the Commission that in both the matters, the information held on record had been shared with the Appellant. A reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in File Nos. CIC/BPCLD/A/2017/138820 dated 01.03.2018 and CIC/HPCLD/A/2017/139231 dated 08.03.2018 wherein the Commission had pronounced its decision.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 03.12.2019, (Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/621992-BJ) wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI Page 2 of 5 Application, reply of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the Appellant had earlier filed the similar RTI Applications with BPCL and HPCL seeking copies of the agreement which was entered by the government u/s 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of lands at Village Anik and Mahul and more particularly Anik Gaothan, sometime in early 1950. The CPIOs of both the companies confirmed that, they did not possess property record(s) sought by the Applicant. The CPIO, BPCL confirmed the availability of a copy of the notification issued u/s 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the subject matter. The Appeal filed by the Applicant had been listed for hearing by CIC vide no.
Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2017/138820 Appeal No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2017/139231 Furthermore, the Commission in its decision expressed the satisfaction in the action/steps taken by the Respondent in giving response to the RTI application and disposed of the application with the remark "No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter." It was pertinent to note that the Applicant had sought the information since 1948. M/s Burma Shell Refineries Oil Storage and Distribution Company was a Pvt. Company and any such activity (due diligence) carried out by them till formation of BPCL 1976 was not in the record of the BPCL. Point number 8(b) under Prayers or Relief sought in the second appeal was not relevant to the RTI application filed by applicant. It was therefore submitted that they did not find any significance of "The Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 submitted with 2nd Appeal, in line with the RTI Application. In view of the above mentioned, the Respondents earnestly requested the Commission to dispose of the present Appeal. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 03.12.2019, (Appeal No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/627364-BJ) wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application, reply of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the lands were acquired by the Government of Maharashtra in the 1950s and transferred to Esso Standard Refining Co. of India Ltd. the predecessor-in-interest of HPCL. The Central Government vide Gazette notification dated 13th March, 1974 known as Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 acquired and vested with the Central Government the rights, title and interest of ESSO in relation to its undertakings in India. A copy of the Acquisition Act, had been provided. Furthermore, it was stated that it did not possess a copy of any agreement regarding land acquisition of ESSO at Mahul/Anik nor was HPCL even aware of the existence of any such agreement. The land had been taken in 1950s. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission that it may be pleased to dispose off the Second Appeal by upholding the CPIO reply dated 12.04.2018 and the First Appellate Authority's reply dated 16.05.2018.The earlier CPIO had resigned and the submission was made by the current CPIO.
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."Page 3 of 5
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 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."
Page 4 of 5DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs CPIO (BPCL & HPCL) to share any additional information available with them with the Appellant's representative for her ready reference. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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) (S. S. Rohilla) (एस.एस. रो ह ला) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 11.12.2019 Page 5 of 5