Central Information Commission
Shrirag K. U. vs Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals ... on 3 March, 2025
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/MRPLT/A/2024/605744
Shri Shrirag K. U. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025
Date of Decision : 27.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.08.2023
PIO replied on : 12.09.2023
First Appeal filed on : 16.09.2023
First Appellate Order on : 05.10.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"1.A statement showing therein the year wise sanctioned strength of man power in each grade of management level posts, along with copies of competent authority's approval thereto from time to time
2. Year wise sanctioned manpower in all management grade or cadre from 2007 to 2022
3. Any ad hoc promotions given from non-management to management entry level grade From year 2007 to 20227 If Yes copy of the approval taken from competent authority."
The CPIO, GM(security), Mangalore vide letter dated 12.09.2023 replied as under:-
"Reply to point no. 1 & 2 The sanctioned manpower is an internal document, confidential in nature, and no larger public interest involved. Hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Reply to point no. 3 Yes. During the period 2007 to 2020, total 318 Employees were given Ad-hoc promotion.Page 1 of 3
The copy of the approvals sought by the applicant is confidential in nature, and no larger public interest involved. Hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 05.10.2023 stated as under:-
"On perusal of the records in all the four RTI Appeals, it seems that the information sought is voluminous and replying it individually may disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. Therefore, in view of the same, it would be appropriate, rather than directing the CPIO to again reply to each of these queries, to allow the appellant to inspect the records relevant to his queries.
In these circumstance, the CPIO is hereby directed to fix the schedule for such inspection by the Appellant within a period of 30 days from receipt of this Order and without any further fee demanded from the appellant. However, the CPIO may prescribe for the conditions/instructions necessary to meet with the safety norms of the refinery and the appellant shall follow such instructions."
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO, GM(Security), Mangalore vide letter dated 18.10.2023 replied as under:-
"In pursuance of the subject Order of the First Appellate Authority, we request you to kindly visit the Administration Building of MRPL, located at Post Kuthethoor, Mangalore-575030 on 26th October 2023 at 3:00 pm for the inspection of records.
To facilitate your entry to MRPL, please contact the undersigned upon your arrival at the MRPL Main Gate.
Please note that you must carry a valid ID proof when coming for the inspection of records. Also, please note that you will have to bear the cost of travel to Mangalore, and MRPL will not reimburse any expenses incurred on this account. Furthermore, your visit will be subject to security checks and other office rules and procedures."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission signed by the CPIO, MRPL on 18.02.2025 has been received by the Commission with point wise information as under:
1. The information sought is voluminous. Disclosure of which may disproportionately divert the resources of this public authority. However, if the information seeker specifies the information sought, under section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, that may be provided, subject to the provisions of the Act.
2. This information is also voluminous. The disclosure of which may disproportionately divert the resources of this public authority. The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, vide their O.M. No 11/2/2008-IR dated 10th July, 2008 has clarified that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is not required to compile or consolidate the information sought by the information seeker. (Copy attached)
3. Adhoc Promotions. MRPL had promoted 318 employees, on adhoc basis. If any specific promotion order copy is sought, that may be provided, as per the provisions of the Act Page 2 of 3 Copy of the written submission has been duly marked to the Appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: The Appellant was present with Shri Sandeep Chalapadhi and heard through video conference Respondent: Shri I V Muralidaran - GM, Security attended the hearing through video conference.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions with the Respondent stating that point wise information available on record and permissible under the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant, in the form of the written submission in terms of the RTI Act. The Appellant's counsel admitted that information had been received but stated that he was not satisfied with the information.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in consonance with the provisions of the Act. It is noted that the PIO had in fact offered inspection of records to the Appellant pursuant to the FAA's order. From the aforementioned facts of the case, it is amply evident that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act. In the given circumstances, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)