Central Information Commission
Mahesh Narayan Trivedi vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 31 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/HPCLD/A/2019/640453-BJ
Mr. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi
(Email: [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
Ahmedabad Retail RO, Petroleum House
Behind Memnagar Fire Station,
Navrangpura - P.B. 4032,
Ahmedabad, Gujrat - 380009
2. CPIO,
Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Udaipur Retail Regional Office:
50, Saheli Nagar, New Polo Ground,
Udaipur - 313001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2020
Date of Decision : 30.07.2020
Date of RTI application 10.12.2018
CPIO's response 26.12.2018
Date of the First Appeal 02.02.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 20.03.2019
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
Page 1 of 7
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in reference to two separate lease deed dated 27.06.1958 with erstwhile Standard Vacuum Oil Company and 20.07.1962 with ESSO Eastern INC, the copy of entire file together with note sheet maintained by the Respondent Public Authority in connection with above referred lease deed.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 26.12.2018, denied disclosure of information referring to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and stated that no public interest would be served but the Appellant's personal interest and that the disclosure would compromise the ability of the Public Authority to find the best way to legally defend the interest of the Company and Company Officers, who is threatened by legal action of the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20.03.2019, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Bohra through VC; Respondent: Mr. Suneet Batty, Head Legal, North West Zone and Mr. Vijay Kumar Patel, DGM & CPIO, Ahmedabad Retail Region and Mr. Vineet Kumar Pohani, CPIO & Dy. GM, Udaipur through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the RTI application was marked to the Zonal Office, Ahmedabad who in turn transferred the application to Udaipur Office stating that the related files were available at Udaipur Office. In its reply, the Respondent, Ahmedabad submitted that the custody and possession of all retail business records, files etc., had been transferred to HPCL Udaipur Retail Regional Office (Rajasthan) immediately after the formation of the Regional Office as per HPCL process and accordingly, the application was forwarded to Udaipur Office, for replying to the information seeker.
The Respondent, Udaipur, present during the hearing, informed that the RTI application of the Appellant was received from the Ahmedabad Retail Region on 17.12.2018 and the same was replied vide letter 26.12.2018 denying information referring to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA had also disposed off the Appeal vide order dated 20.03.2019. The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant and his relative Mr. Avinash Chandra Trivedi have been filing a large number of RTI applications/Appeals during the past many years with respect to their original RTI application. The Respondent further submitted that the RTI Applicant was also involved in raising a number of litigations and Appeals with HPCL in past and had also used various forums such as the Local Administration / PESO for causing disruption of sales at HPCL Retail Outlet M/s Vijay Motors, Udaipur. In addition, it was informed that the Applicant along Page 2 of 7 with Mr. Avinash Chandra Trivedi filed WP 6412/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the case was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh vide order dated 17.12.2012. Thereafter, stay application was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the Court. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that various complaints had also been made to Petroleum Explosive Safety Organization (PESO).
The Appellant contested the submissions of the Respondent and referred to page 09 of his written submission dated 21.07.2020 wherein he submitted that the CPIO HPCL, Udaipur Shri Vineet Pohani had furnished the latest undertaking dated 24.06.2019 in connection with pending litigation stating that "No Litigation/Court proceedings are under way in any court of law". Therefore, he submitted that contradictory replies were furnished by the Respondent. He further referred to File No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/636931 listed for the hearing today and submitted that the information was initially denied under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 but now they have provided the information. Therefore, the information sought in the instant matter should also be furnished to him. A reference was also made to the decision of the Commission in File CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/634049-BJ dated 04.06.2020. Furthermore, the Appellant while referring to page 18 and 19 of the submission dated 21.07.2020 submitted that his Grievance was lying with the Zonal Office and therefore, he requested the Commission to provide the complete information as sought in the RTI application. In its reply, the Respondent in reference to complaints received through Vigilance Department, submitted that the complaints have been forwarded to CGM-Retail, North West Zone for taking suitable action and that the CGM-Retail was investigating the matter. The Respondent further submitted that the basis for initiating all the litigations, Appeals and Complaints was the lease deed dated 27.06.1958 and 20.07.1962 and the Corporation had already shared a copy of the lease deed with the Applicant. Moreover, the Public Authority was willing to offer an inspection of the said documents. On being queried by the Commission whether any Court proceeding was pending at this stage, the Respondent replied in the affirmative which was countered by the Appellant stating that he had not filed any Court Case and that the dealer of HPCL had filed cases. The Respondent consistently maintained its earlier submission and stated that the Court case is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Civil Judge North, Udaipur.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 21.07.2020 wherein a point-wise submission was made in addition to his earlier submissions, grounds of Appeal and documents in support of his 2nd Appeal filed before the Commission. A reference of the decision of the Commission was also made with regard to supply of information in CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/634049-BJ dated 04.06.2020. He inter-alia prayed to the Commission to give necessary direction to CPIO-HPCL, Ahmedabad to provide the pending documents/information as sought in the original RTI application dated 10.12.2018 within a reasonable period of 15 days as also to provide clear, precise, cogent and specific and updated point-wise information.
The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Appellant dated 28.07.2020 wherein the reply provided by the CPIO was point-wise contested by the Appellant.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, Ahmedabad Retail RO dated 21.07.2020 wherein at the outset it was submitted that the information sought by the Applicant pertains to the Marketing activities of HPCL, Udaipur Retail Page 3 of 7 Regional Office and applicable files, record, etc., therefore the application was forwarded to them.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 21.07.2020 wherein while narrating the background of the case, at the outset it was submitted that the CPIO/FAA had suitably responded to the RTI application/Appeal of the Applicant. In support of their contention, the Respondent referred to the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria Vs. Department of Revenue CIC/AT/A/2008/00025 dated 27.07.2009 in respect of denial of information. The CPIO further provided the details of the earlier and present litigations, Appeals and complaints initiated by the Appellant as well as his relative which are narrated as under:-
1. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi and Avinash Trivedi vs. HPCL WP 6412/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan;
2. Complaints before Explosive Authorities;
3. Shri Mahesh Narayan Trivedi vs. HPCL before District Magistrate, Udaipur;
4. M/s Vijay Motors vs Shri Avinash Trivedi, Shri Mahesh Narayan Trivedi, HPCL and others filed before Hon'ble Civil Judge North Udaipur- M/s Vijay Motors filed Civil Suit No. 104/2018 and 150/2018, etc. The Respondent further submitted that the party seeking information has initiated multiple litigations, Appeals and Complaints and that there is all likelihood of future litigation.
Furthermore, the information sought is purely for personal / private purpose for developing a case and does not serve any public interest. Keeping in view of various complaints, allegations, litigation and various Court Cases with the Applicant and Shri Avinash Chandra Trivedi (related to Appellant), the CPIO had shown inability to disclose the sought information which includes internal approvals, note sheets, etc. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the instant Appeal.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
Page 4 of 735..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
Page 5 of 7"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had 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.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
Page 6 of 7DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email, as agreed.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 30.07.2020
Page 7 of 7