Central Information Commission
Daratla Mrudul vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 3 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/119956
Daratla Mrudul अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Ltd.,
TELENGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OFFICE, RTI CELL, INDIAN
OIL BHAWAN, FATEHBAGH,
MOOSAPET, KUKATPALLY
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SANATH
NAGAR (POST),
HYDERABAD-500018, TELANGANA. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/03/2023
Date of Decision : 02/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 17/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 01/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 06/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.08.2021 with the CPIO, IOCL, Warangal seeking the following information:1
"1. To inform the reasons for not receiving the letter of Appointment to the applicant even after lapse of 9 months period after issue of No objection certificate by the Competent authority.
2. What is the usual time for issue of Letter of Appointment after submitting the No objection certificate in Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
3. What is the time frame to take a decision on an issue by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
4. When the other oil companies such as BPCL/ HPCL are establishing the petrol pumps on the same road immediately after issue of No objection Certificate, why the Indian Oil Corporation is taking months / years together for establishing the petrol pumps and making loss to the prospective owners.
5. Is there any compensation policy for deviating / delaying the process of establishing the pumps as I lost my job and now without job since 3 years by expecting the dealership at an early date / start and also loss of time and money.
6. I also request to provide the internal notes on the issue for which the IOC authorities have taken a decision for establishing or not on any other decision.
7. What are the reasons for not responding to my letters / phone calls."
The CPIO, IOCL Hyderabad upon receipt of the RTI Application on inter transfer basis, furnished a reply to the appellant on 17.11.2021 stating as under:
"The Queries raised are in nature of Grievances relating to the Dealer Selection Process and does not constitute information as defined under section 2 (1) (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grievance Redressal System procedure is available in the Brochure for selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Outlets dated 24th Nov, 2018 & can be accessed by accessing the following link:
https://www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in/assets/pdfs/Brochure for filling application.pdf Therefore, you may file your grievance before the competent authority by following the procedure laid down in the Brochure given under point no. 27 accordingly for resolution of your grievance."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 06.01.2022, held as under:
"... I am not inclined to interfere with the RTI Reply given by the CPIO against queries 1, 4, 6 & 7.2
However, the replies against queries 2, 3 & 5 may have been provided by CPIO at the first instance. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that CPIO in his Reply has made certain typographical errors and it is also an admitted fact that though the RTI Application was received by Warangal Divisional Office but the same was not forwarded to the office of CPIO in due course.
Therefore, in the interest of justice the CPIO is hereby directed to:
1. Furnish a fresh reply against query no. 2, 3 & 5 of the Original RTI dated 30.8.202 Ito the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this FAA order.
2. Furnish a copy of said Brochure for selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Outlets dated 24th November, 2018 duly highlighting the relevant Clause 18 providing for Grievance Redressal System to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this FAA order.
3. Carry out a sensitization drive for Warangal Divisional Office and related Staff about the timelines provided under the RTI Act, 2005 to create awareness among the officials so that necessary efforts are made by the officials to administer and implement the spirit and intent of the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, the Appellant is well within his rights to approach the Grievance Redressal System for redressal of his grievances if any along with all the relevant documents substantiating his grievance in consonance with the applicable dealer selection brochure."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: R. S. Narayanan, GM & PIO along with D. R. Bhushan, DGM (RS) and Vineet Bhaskar, Manager (Law) present through video-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that the Letter of Intent (LOI) for dealership of petrol pump under Kisan Seva Kendra- Retail Outlet, Foujepur Village, Jainath Mandal, District Adilabad (A.P.) despite receipt of NOC from District Collector, was not issued by IOCL in his favour. He further harped on the fact that even the order of FAA's has not been complied by the CPIO.3
The CPIO relying on his latest written submission dated 01.03.2023 reiterated the averred reply and further tendered his unconditional apologies for non- compliance of FAA's order explaining the reason for the same to be the restricted availability of manpower owing to Covid -19. He further added that the CPIO for IOCL, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh is seated at Hyderabad (Telangana & Andhra Pradesh State Office-TAPSO) and inadvertently, the officials at Warangal office could not forward the said RTI Application to CPIO on time for further necessary action and that the concerned officials have been suitably guided and sensitized about the provisions of the Act. Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO explained in detail the reasons for non-consideration of the request of Appellant for LOI by IOCL.
Lastly, the CPIO further apprised the Commission that for the subject matter dealership issue, the Appellant has also filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. bearing no. 30660/2022; therefore, at this stage disclosure of information including internal note sheets of IOCL for said dealership attracts exemption clause of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of both the parties observes that the relief claimed in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se and in fact, it is about the Appellant's resolve of bringing to fore his grievance pertaining to non-receipt of dealership for averred area and further seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the reply of the CPIO at first instance appears to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] where in it was held as under:4
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission is baffled with the fact that no reply has ever been provided to the Appellant by the concerned then CPIO initially and in addition to it, the then CPIO did not even comply with the FAA's order within the stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act. Further, even if, the Commission appreciate the challenges faced by the entire world owing to COVID pandemic, it cannot lose sight of the fact that the CPIO did not respond to the Appellant until receipt of the hearing notice for taking any effective action in the matter. Such casual conduct of the CPIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is in grave violation of the provisions of RTI Act.5
In view of the above, the concerned then CPIO, IOCL, Warangal (at the time of receipt of RTI Application) is hereby directed to send his written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for not giving timely reply coupled with relevant information to the Appellant. The said written explanation of the concerned then CPIO along with supporting documents, if any, through the present CPIO should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. R. S. Narayanan, present PIO should serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO for timely compliance of the above said direction under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the CPIO is directed to comply with the directions of FAA as per the provisions of RTI Act. The said information should be provided by the CPIO, free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6