Central Information Commission
Umesh Kumar Gupta vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 22 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2023/109370
Shri Umesh Kumar Gupta ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.04.2024
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2022
PIO replied on : 12.10.2022
First Appeal filed on : 22.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 18.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 10.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
"1. Financial Statements of the captioned employee for the period 01-04-1996 to 31-12- 2016.
2. Whether the captioned employee had declared to the IOCL in any manner that he had shares and interests in another Company namely KTR Woollens (P) Ltd. R.O. at 520/6 Rajputana Street, Panipat-132103. If yes, provide copy.
3. Whether Dinesh Kumar Garg had declared to the IOCL in any manner that he partially owned agriculture land situated in the revenue area of Taraf Rajputan, Panipat and sold in September 2001 if yes, provide copy.
4. Whether he had declared to the IOCL in any manner that he partially owns a commercial establishment situated at Panipat bearing 520/6 Rajputana Street, Panipat if yes, provide copy."
The CPIO vide letter dated 12.10.2022 replied as under:-
"The requested information is related to personal information of Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, an Ex- employee of IOCL and the same is exempted from disclosure under Sec 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Hence information cannot be furnished."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 18.11.2022 held as under:-
Page 1 "The Appellant vide RTI Application dated 13.07.2022 has sought financial statement, shares and properties of ex-employee, Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg. In reply, the Respondent vide letter dated 12.10.2022 informed the Appellant that the requested information is related to personal information of Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, an Ex-employee of IOCL and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Hence, requested information cannot be furnished. The Appellant in the ground of Appeal has alleged that that there is larger public interest in seeking the. Information as Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg has not disclosed in his official record in IOCL, regarding acquiring the claimed properties to the Registrar of Companies, thereby making concealment and cheating with IOCL. In this regard, it is ascertained that the Respondent has rightly informed the Appellant that that the requested information is related to personal information of Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, an Ex-employee of IOCL and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Accordingly, the Respondent has not violated any provisions of RTI Act, 2005. With regard to ground of Appeal raised by the Appellant, it is observed that the same is in nature of allegation and no larger public interest exists which warrants the disclosure of the requested information under the RTI Act, 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 17.04.2024 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the above replies by the PIO and the FAA and also mentioned the Apex Court decision in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present with Shri Dharambir Beniwal Respondent: Shri Mayank Deep - Assistant Manager and Ms. Shailja Misra Both parties are present for hearing and submit their respective contentions as noted above. The Appellant explained that he was defrauded and cheated by Shri Dinesh Garg and hence he sought the information about his financial position to initiate legal action against him.
Decision:
In the light of the aforementioned facts, it is noted that the Respondent's reply of denying information invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is legally appropriate and hence it is upheld. Information sought relates to third party and is personal in nature and no larger public interest has been demonstrated by the Appellant for obtaining the information. In so far as the personal dispute which exists between the Appellant and the third party is concerned, no relief can be granted nor the dispute resolved under the RTI Act.
Upon perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the written submission dated 17.04.2024 filed by the Respondent before the Commission contains detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory information. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to send a copy of the written submission dated 17.04.2024 with annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The Page 2 Respondent shall also submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter.
The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.
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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)