Central Information Commission
Mrp Sugunavati vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 4 July, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/000003
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Date of hearing : 4th July 2016
Date of decision : 4th July 2016
Name of the Complainant : Smt. P. Sugunavati,
53510 3/18, Brodipet, Guntur,
A.P. 522002
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Reliance Humsafar. 2nd Floor, 82618/2,
Road No.11, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad 500034
RTI Application filed on : 27/11/2014
CPIO replied on : 23/12/2014
First Appeal filed on : __
First Appellate Authority order on : __
Complaint received on : 30/12/2014
The Complainant was represented by Shri G. L. N. Prasad, who was present at the
NIC Studio, Guntur.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri K. V. Ravish Kumar, Senior Manager was
present at the NIC Studio, Rangareddy.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
CIC/SH/C/2015/000003
Information sought
This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Complainant, seeking information on seven points regarding copy of Guntur Addl. Sub. Judgement confirming ownership title to Shri V. Venkatarama Sastry and related issues.
The CPIO reply The CPIO replied that information had already been provided based on the available records.
Grounds of complaint to the Commission Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply.
Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision The representative of the Complainant stated that the CPIO gave a misleading reply by stating that the Respondents had provided the information to all the queries of the Complainant based on the available records at their end and also allowed inspection of files and provided copies of the required documents to her authorized representative. In this context, he mentioned, in particular, that at point No. 1, the Complainant had enquired CIC/SH/C/2015/000003 about a judgment referred to by the Respondents, which does not exist. The representative of the Complainant prayed for an enquiry by the Commission into the misleading reply of the CPIO. The Respondents reiterated the reply of the CPIO and submitted that an inspection of the records was allowed to the representative of the Complainant in November 2015 also.
2. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and note that the Complainant has filed a large number of RTI applications concerning information in respect of a retail outlet of the Respondents and the matter was considered at length in our order No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000887/SH, CIC/LS/A/2012/001424/SH, CIC/SH/C/2014/000035, CIC/SH/C/2014/000073 and CIC/SH/A/2014/000319 dated 19.12.2014. In the above order, we made, inter alia, the following observations: "In this context, we note that the Respondents have provided copies of various documents more than once and also offered explanation in response to the queries of the Appellant / Complainant more than once. Many of the questions relate to events that are fifty years old and the CPIO cannot be expected to produce information that does not exist on the records of the public authority. We see no ground to conclude that there has been deliberate denial of information or fabrication of documents by the Respondents. The Appellant / Complainant, who is very old, has been represented in most of the cases by Shri G. L. N. Prasad. She and her representatives ought to CIC/SH/C/2015/000003 realise that whatever claim, that she believes she has to the land in question, has to be established in a court of law. Continued filing of a large number of RTI application, even after the Respondents have provided a good deal of information, adds to the work of the public authority to respond to the same, without adding any further value to the information that the Appellant / Complainant has already been provided in response to her repeated RTI queries. We would like to recall to the Appellant / Complainant the full observation of the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 9.8.2011 in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., which was briefly referred to in paragraph 5 of our interim order dated 2.7.2014: "37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non CIC/SH/C/2015/000003 productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
3. In the light of the foregoing, we would not fault the reply of the CPIO and do not consider it necessary to enquire further into this complaint.
4. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/C/2015/000003