Central Information Commission
Rahul Soni vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 17 May, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2020/683696
Mr. Rahul Soni ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
State Office (retail) Rajasthan
Plot No. 2, Sehkar Marg, Old
Residency Road, 22 Godown,
Jaipur-302006
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 03-07-2020 FA : 30-07-2020 SA : 31-08-2020
CPIO : 24-07-2020 FAO : 05-08-2020 Hearing: 06-05-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan.The appellant seeking information on nine points including inter-aliais as under:-
Page 1 of 62. The CPIO vide letter dated 24-07-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file filed first appeal dated 30-07-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FA FAA vide order dated 05-08-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. appeal He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice.. The respondent, Shri Praveen Matu,, CPIO/ Chief Manager (Business Planning) attended the hearing through video-conferencing conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 30.04.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 24.07.2020, 24.07.2020 they have informed the appellant tthat since the matter is sub-judice judice in the Hon'ble Court, hence they are unable to provide the requested information under section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that the he investigation has now been completed.
Page 2 of 6Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the product sampling done by BPCL on 30.11.2013 and other queries related thereto. The respondent has contended that the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005, since the case was sub-judice, the disclosure of the said information may impede the process of investigation. The Commission observes that mere pendency of the matter before the Court is not the ground to deny the information unless there is a stay in providing such information. Moreover, it was observed that as per the provisions of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, no specific exemption is codified which allowed non-disclosure of information on the ground that the matter on which information is sought is sub-judice. In this context, the following extract of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 can be cited:
"5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
The Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts in CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769 dated 28.11.2016 had held as under:
"At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court."
Furthermore, the Commission in CIC/SM/A/2011/000343/SG/13645 can be cited wherein it was held as under:
"The stay order(s) of the High Court of Delhi do not appear to have framed a specific issue for determination and have granted a stay specifically only on the operation of the order of the Commission dated 24/08/2009. No claim for the exemption has been made by the PIO as per Page 3 of 6 the RTI Act. However, the Commission assumes that the PIO is claiming that disclosure of information is exempt since the matter is sub- judice. The only exemption which may relate to matters in court is Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure "information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court". From a plain reading of Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, it is clear that it does not include sub- judice matters. As mentioned above, information may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Section 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure. Hence, disclosing information on matters which are sub- judice cannot constitute contempt of Court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. The mere claim that a matter is sub- judice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the RTI Act. In view of the same, the Commission rules that the denial of information by the PIO on queries 36 and 38 of the RTI application is legally untenable. Moreover, in view of the observations laid down above, the decisions cited by the PIO are not relevant to the present matter."
The Commission in the matter of Shri Nanak Chand Arora v. State Bank of India in CIC/MA/A/2006/00018 dated 30.06.2006 had also held as under:
"10 The CPIO and the Chief Manager of the Bank has not responded to the information seeker in the spirit in which the Act seeks to promote transparency in functioning of the Bank. He has mis-interpreted the provision of the Act and informed that there was no provision for inspection of the record in the Act. This is contrary to the provision u/ s 2
(f). He has also not indicated as to why the report could not be disclosed, except that the matter was sub-judice. There is no provision in the Act which restricts the disclosure of information merely on the ground of the fact that matter is pending with the Consumer Court. In the instant case, the Court has not forbidden the disclosure of investigation report or inspection of record."Page 4 of 6
7. It has been observed that the name of the laboratories when the investigation was pending could have been denied in the interest of investigation but documentation of his samples as it exist on record of public authority could have been furnished after completion of investigation. Also, since the respondent has admitted that the investigation has now been concluded and the said case is also dismissed, therefore various details of his samples and other documents relating to him should be provided to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
8. The respondent has wrongly invoked the relevant provision of the RTI Act without application of mind. The Commission is of the opinion that the respondent taking embrace of exemption recklessly and non-meticulously in order to avoid giving a clear reply to the appellant. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent is not satisfactory and a strong warning is hereby issued to the respondent to be more meticulous in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act.
9. In light of the above observations, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a revised reply vide which copy of relevant documents relating to his sample should be provided to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक / Date : 06-05-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited State Office (retail) Rajasthan Plot No. 2, Sehkar Marg, Old Residency Road, 22 Godown, Jaipur-302006
2. Mr. Rahul Soni Page 6 of 6