Central Information Commission
Samir Sardana vs Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals ... on 17 December, 2024
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/2023/610659
CIC/MRPLT/A/2023/610685
Shri Samir Sardana ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Limited (MRPL)
Date of Hearing : 13.12.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
CIC/MRPLT/A/2023/610659
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.11.2022
PIO replied on : 05.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 16.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 16.01.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 25.02.2023
CIC/MRPLT/A/2023/610685
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.11.2022
PIO replied on : 05.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 16.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 16.01.2023
2 Appeal/Complaint received on
nd : 25.02.2023
CIC/MRPLT/A/2023/610659
CIC/MRPLT/A/2023/610685
[Both cases relate to the same set of queries between the same parties, and hence both
appeals are tagged together and adjudicated together to avoid repetition]
Information soughtand background of the case:
Page 1 of 4The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
MRPL START UP • PIO to provide the AMOUNT INVESTED BY MRPL, IN THE "START UP" PROGRAMMES FOR ENTREPRENEURS, IN THE LAST 5 YEARS,YEAR BY YEAR - IN THE FORM OF EQUITY,QUASI EQUITY AND DEBT (SEPARATELY) • PIO TO PROVIDE THE NAMES OF THE ENTITIES AND AMOUNTS INVESTED (FOR EACH ENTITY) IN FY 2022 AND FY 2021, BY MRPL, VIDE THE "START UP" PROGRAMMES FOR ENTREPRENEURS • PIO TO STATE THE AGGREGATE PROFITS EARNED BY THE MRPLINVESTEES, IN THE "START UP" PROGRAMMES FOR ENTREPRENEURS, FOR FY 21 AND FY 22 (SEPARATELY) Audit • PIO to state if any security audit was done of MRPL operations in India, at any time in the last 10 years, as under o Year of audit, scope of audit, name of auditor • PIO to state if any CAG audit was done of MRPL operations in India, at any time in the last 4 years, as under o Year of audit, scope of audit, type of audit (compliance/performance/special),whether audit report is online • PIO to state if any CAG audit was done of MRPL operations in India, at any time in the last 10 year, w.r.t. the following, as under o OIL hedging strategy - PROVIDE YEAR OF AUDIT,NAME OF AUDITOR AND SCOPE OF AUDIT o Appraisal of START UP ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROGRAM OF MRPL- PROVIDE YEAR OF AUDIT,NAME OF AUDITOR AND SCOPE OF AUDIT o Crude Oil imports PRICING FORMULA AND BASIS - PROVIDE YEAR OF AUDIT,NAME OF AUDITOR AND SCOPE OF AUDIT o BOOKING AND MANAGEMENT OF TIME AND VOYAGE CHARTERS ON TANKERS USED FOR CRUDE OIL IMPORTS - PROVIDE YEAR OF AUDIT,NAME OF AUDITOR AND SCOPE OF AUDIT o FINISHED PRODUCTS PRICING FORMULA AND BASIS FOR EXPORTS - PROVIDE YEAR OF AUDIT,NAME OF AUDITOR AND SCOPE OF AUDIT o And other related information."
The CPIO, Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL) vide letter dated 05.12.2022 replied as under:-
Details of information sought Our reply
OCEAN LOSS The data sought by the applicant for the
• PIO TO STATE THE AGGREGATE financial year 2021 and 2022 with respect to
OCEAN LOSS TO MRPL, IN FY 21 Ocean Loss is voluminous in nature and no
AND FY 22, IN TERMS OF VALUE complied data available for the said period.
AND QUANTITY, W.R.T. THE CRUDE As collation of information takes time and
OIL IMPORTED BY MRPL impinges on the resources of the Public
Authority the information sought cannot be divulged under the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
Pricing Formula Saudi Aramco: Average Monthly quotes of • PIO to state the pricing formula Dubai and Oman DME + OSP basis of the 3 largest CRUDE OIL SOMO: Average Monthly quotes of Dubai and SUPPLIES IN FY 22 to MRPL Oman DME + OSP NOTE: ADNOC: IFAD Murban M-2 Page 2 of 4 THE BASIS OF THE FORMULA IS *OSP is declared by the supplier on Monthly SOUGHT NOT THE FORMULA basis . FOR EXAMPLE, COPPER IS IMPORTED ON SAY LME MONTHLY AVERAGE OF MONTH OF SHIPMENT, PLUS A PREMIUM OR A DISCOUNT = FOB RATES FOR EXAMPLE, LNG IMPORTS IN INDIA ARE LINKED TO HENRY HUB OR JPCC RATES, WITH A SLOPE/ DISCOUNT ETC.
• HENCE, THE DISCOUNT OR
PREMIUM IS NOT SOUGHT FROM
MRPL-ONLY THE BASIS IS SOUGHT.
INVENTORY WRITE DOWN Nil.
PIO To state the VALUE of Raw Material and Finished Goods inventory
INVENTORIES OF RAW MATERIAL AND has not been written down during the said
FINISHED GOODS, WRITTEN DOWN, FY 21 & FY 22.
TO NET REALISABLE VALUE, IN FY 21
AND FY 21,AS UNDER:
YEAR OF WRITE DOWN, NAME OF
INVENTORY ITEM, VALUE OF WRITE
DOWN
PRODUCT DATA The information is not readily available. As
• PIO TO STATE THE VALUE OF collation of information takes time and
EXPORT SALES IN FY 21 AND impinges on the resources of the Public
FY 22, AS UNDER: Authority the information sought cannot be
o YEAR, NAME OF PRODUCT, divulged under the provisions of Section 7(9)
COUNTRY OF EXPORT, VALUE of the RTI Act.
OF EXPORT Further importer information is confidential
• PIO TO STATE THE VALUE OF under confidentiality clause of contract
DOMESTIC SALES IN FY 21 between seller and buyer and would
AND FY 22, AS UNDER: undermine the competitive position of the
o YEAR, NAME OF PRODUCT buyer/seller. As such, in compliance of RTI
(Naphtha, Gasoline (Petrol), ACT 2005 Section 8(1)(d), the information Jet/Kerosene, Gasoil (Diesel) regarding country of export is cannot be and Fuel Oil etc.), VALUE OF furnished. SALES Etc."
This CPIO reply submitted with the second appeal does not pertain to the RTI application dated 09.11.2022, mentioned hereinabove.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 16.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 03.12.2024 has been received from the Respondent pointing out that the Appellant has filed a reply sent by the PIO which is not related to the Appellant's queries in this case. It has further been averred by the Respondent that Page 3 of 4 the Appellant had inter alia asked for a copy of the latest FX HEDGING POLICY of the MRPL (as approved by the board or the risk management committee of MRPL); and a copy of the latest oil price hedging policy of MRPL (as approved by the board, or the risk management committee of MRPL). The CPIO in this regard informed the Appellant that the information sought was confidential in nature and was exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act. He had also asked for information about security audit of Respondent's operations in India, disclosure of such information could prejudicially affect the security interest of the State and hence disclosure of the same was denied under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The said information is commercial confidence disclosure of information which would harm the competitive position of the public authority. Denial of disclosure of the said information is in consonance with the provision of the Act.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri V Muralidharan - CPIO/GM(Security was present through video conference during hearing.
The Respondent contended that information permissible under the RTI Act had been made available to the Appellant and placed reliance on the written submission dated 03.12.2024 mentioned hereinabove to substantiate his contentions. The Appellant has chosen not to attend the hearing, despite service of hearing notice in advance.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information permissible under the RTI Act and available on record with the public authority, has been duly provided to the Appellant by the Respondent, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Respondent present during hearing is directed to send a copy of the written submission dated 03.12.2024 with annexure/s, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. Since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, 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 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)