Bimal Julka, CIC

1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the details of expenditure incurred by ONGC Mehsana for Case No. CMA-72 of 2016 and CMA-80 of 2017 in the District Court of Mehsana v. GSGS; the details of expenditure incurred by ONGC Mehsana in Supreme Court against the Judgment and final order dated 10.09.2004 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application no. 3396 of 2004 Vs. GSGS and issues related thereto.

2. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.02.2018 attached the reply received from the concerned office wherein a point-wise response was provided regarding the status of expenditure incurred in various Court Cases. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.06.2018, enclosed a copy of reply given online by the FAA on 12.06.2018 wherein the response provided by the CPIO, ONGC, Mehsana dated 01.05.2018 was upheld.

Hearing:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

3. The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Ramesh N. Chaudhary through VC;

Respondent: Mr. Wilson Christian, Chief Manager and Mr. Bharat Pandey, Dy. Legal Adviser through VC;

4. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information was not provided to him, till date. He further submitted that wrong and misleading information was provided by the CPIO and therefore, penalty should be imposed on the erring Respondent, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant further relied on his written submissions. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 06.07.2020/05.07.2020/06.02.2020/05.02.2020/15.01.2020/14.01.2020 wherein it was inter alia submitted that the wrong and misleading information was provided by the CPIO, ONGC. It was further submitted that due to ONGC activities, the Ground water, Crops, Fruits and Vegetable were destroyed and consequently caused unbearable losses to farmers. He also represented the same before the Central/State Government for misusing of public funds by the Public Authority and for filing Court cases for personal interest and for harassing them since long and lingering the cases. Furthermore, he submitted that the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory board had issued a Show Cause Notice to M/S Adani Gas Ltd. and imposed penalty of Rs. 400 crores for hiding the true facts before the Regulatory board (News Paper dt. 25-01-2020.). And that the same matter is applicable in ONGC for hiding true facts before OEC as well as Tribunal Court. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to impose penalty on the erring Respondent. It was further requested the Commission to take action against the officer for hiding the true facts and for misinforming the Higher authority as well as Tribunal Court vide letters dt. 11-11-1994, 12-08-1997 and 08-01-1998.

5. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO/FAA and stated that the information, as available on record, had already been shared with the Appellant. With regard to point no. 02 of the RTI application, it was submitted that no specific case number along with the year of filing in the Supreme Court, was provided and therefore, the same could not be furnished. In addition, it was informed that a Court Case is pending adjudication in the matter before the Commercial Court, Mehsana (Case No. 132/2019) and the District Court, Mehsana (C.MA. 72/2016).

6. 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.”

7. 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………”

8. In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in (2011) 8 SCC 497 (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:

35…… “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.”

9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer 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.”

10. The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:

“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-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˜e˜mployees of public authorities prioritising ‘information furnishing’ at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”

11. 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 v. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal v. 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.

12. 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 v. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No. 2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No. 210 OF 2012 had held as under:

“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.”

13. Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat v. Punjab National Bank 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”

14. Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT v. 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.

15. 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 v. Chief Information Commissioner, W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender v. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.

16. With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held:

“61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.”

17. Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:

“17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.”

18. Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:

“Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.

……The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it.”

19. The Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.

DECISION

20. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the fact that the matter is sub-judice before the District Court and the Commercial Court, Mehsana, 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.

21. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

22. The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission.