Central Information Commission
Ram Chandra Jha vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... on 3 June, 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/ONGCL/A/2023/605180
Shri Ram Chandra Jha ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
(ONGC), New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 30.05.2024
Date of Decision : 30.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.11.2022
PIO replied on : 05.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 02.01.2023
First Appellate Order on : 13.01.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1) "Details of amount of deductions claimed by ONGC year wise under Income Tax Act including any incentives in respect of Block RJ-ON/6 including SGL Field from the year 1998 to current date.
2) Details of amount of liabilities for development and Production cost in respect of SGL Field in Block RJ-ON/6 as recorded year wise in the books of accounts of ONGC from FY 2007-08 onwards."
The GM (HR) & CPIO, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), Delhi vide letter dated 05.12.2022 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1 & 2:-This is with reference to the application dated 04.11.2022 seeking the concerning disclosure of documents, in relation to Block RJ-ON/6, sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information/response, as received from the custodian of the information, is as under:Page 1 of 3
At first glance the application seeks information that is scattered and which pertains to documents and records which are stretched over a long period of time. The information sought by the Applicant is not a matter of ready record and would have to be extracted from the returns/books of accounts of each year which necessarily would require ONGC to extract and compile information tailored to exclude and include information to meet the Application.
Under the Act, the PIO is not to collect and collate documents and information sought. This view has been endorsed by the Central Information Commission in Yashvir Singh vs CPIO, Khadi and Villages Industries Commission Second Appeal CIC/KVICO/A/2018/153683 by the Hon'ble Delhi Registrar. Supreme Court of India vs Commodore Lokesh K Batra WP (C) No. 6634 2011 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011). Therefore, the information sought does not fall within the scope of section 2(f) of the Act.
Further. ONGC files its consolidated tax returns at the company level and not at IN Unit level, the said information if shared would necessarily result in sharing of information concerning the returns of whole company. Additionally, the information sought concerns the details of tax planning and tax records of the Company. Such information apart from concerning commercial confidence under section 8(1)(d) is also information, the nature of which is personal, if disclosed would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the company. This view that the tax records concerning a person qualifies as "personal information" under 8(1)(j) been endorsed by the Supreme Court in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande vs CIC SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012.
Moreover, as denoted in the application itself, the information sought is related to the PSC between Focus Energy & other companies with the Government of India and ONGC. ONGC and Focus Energy Ltd. & other companies are presently pursuing an arbitration concerning disputes related to the said Block RJ-ON/6. Therefore, the information sought is commercially sensitive and the disclosure of the same is not warranted by any over-arching public interest in the present case.
For all the aforementioned reasons and particularly for the reason of commercial sensitivity, and for being information covered by Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 2005, the information sought in the Application cannot be granted."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 3Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Represented by Shri Abhinav Mishra, Advocate Respondent: 1. Smt Seema M Bara, CPIO and GM (HR)
2. Shri Vikas GM (P) The Appellant's representative stated that in case the information sought is large and voluminous, inspection may be facilitated by the Respondent which they are willing to avail off.
Shri Vikas GM reiterated the written submission sent by the CPIO and GM (HR), ONGC, New Delhi vide letter dated 29.05.2024 wherein it was inter alia stated that detailed reasoning was provided to the Appellant while replying to the RTI query. The information sought would not only divert the resources of the organisation being large and voluminous but also has ramification if divulged being confidential in nature besides the fact that there is arbitration case pending.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands 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)