Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Aakash Goel vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 27 September, 2022

Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                            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 Nos. CIC/HPCLD/A/2021/608353 and
CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/609936

Mr. Aakash Goel                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                 VERSUS
                                  बनाम


M/o. Petroleum and Natural Gas,                   ... ितवादी/Respondent
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 06-02-2021           FA    : 02-03-2021          SA      : 10-03-2021
CPIO : 12-02-2021 &
                           FAO : 08-03-2021 &
25.02.2021, 17.02.2021,                                Hearing : 20-09-2022
                           17.02.2021
23.02.2021

                                 ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 12-02-2021, 23.02.2021, 25.02.2021 had provided point wise reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 02-03-2021 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 17.02.2021 & 08-03-2021 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the 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 was not present despite notice. The respondent, M/o. Petroleum, Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Under Secretary was personally present in the hearing. Shri B Suresh, DGM, HPCL, Shri Vijay Sehgal, DGM, BPCL and Shri Praveen Bodwal, General Manager, IOCL attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

4. The written submissions of the respondents are taken on record.

5. The respondent, M/o. Petroleum has informed the Commission that similar matter of the appellant is pending before the Commission for adjudication on 03.10.2022 and the same may be clubbed together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In view of this, the date given 03.10.2022 in file no. CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/609936 stands cancelled.

6. The respondent, M/o. Petroleum submitted that they have informed the appellant vide their letter dated 12.02.2021 that his RTI application was transferred to the CPIO, IOCL, HPCL and BPCL for appropriate action in the matter.

7. The CPIO, BPCL submitted that vide their letter dated 25.02.2021, they have given information to the appellant as per the documents available on record. The CPIO, IOCL submitted that vide their letter dated 08.03.2021, reply/information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application. The CPIO, HPCL submitted that vide their letter dated 23.02.2021, point-wise reply/information has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application.

Decision:

8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondents and after perusal of records, observes that the information sought in the present case is far too wide. Understandably, there is no central database available anywhere in the Govt. containing such information and, therefore, the CPIO concerned had transferred the RTI application of the appellant to the OMCs i.e. IOCL, BPCL and HPCL under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The information seeker has also a responsibility under the RTI Act. He has to very carefully identify the exact information he needs and address his request to the appropriate Public Authority. The Commission further observes that seeking omnibus information on a variety of subjects from a single Public Authority would not yield any result even if it happens to be the M/o. Petroleum and Natural Gas.

9. The Commission is of the view that the CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority. The spirit of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act is to transfer the RTI application of the applicant within the public authority. The CPIO is not expected to know each and every thing under the sky. Every public authority is its own CPIO and the information seeker should file his RTI application to the appropriate public authority.

10. Nonetheless, the respondent, out of way, has transferred the RTI application of the appellant to all the OMCs and the CPIOs of BPCL, HPCL and IOCL has also given point-wise reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application. Further, the appellant was also not present to contest the submissions of the respondent or to substantiate his claims further. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

11. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.

12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 20-09-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:

1. THE CPIO M/o. Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001

2. Akash Goel Page 4 of 4