Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 4454/IC(A)/2009
F. No. CIC/MA/C/2009/00578
Dated, the 7th September, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ishwar Lal
Name of the Public Authority : Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
1
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 19.08.2009.
2. In response to an advertisement dated 30.12.1997 for award of LPG
distributorship under defence category (Rohtak), the appellant, an ex-serviceman
and physically challenged person also submitted his application. He was invited
for personal interview to be held on 23.04.1999. At the venue of interview, he
was informed that the proposed conduct of interview has been “postponed due
to unavoidable reasons. Fresh date of interview will be intimated to each
candidate separately later on.”
3. Till now, the respondent, IOCL has neither intimated the fresh date of
interview nor cancelled the advertised allotment. The decision for award of the
LPG dealership has already been taken in respect of all the identified locations
as per the above mentioned advertisement, except the location (Rohtak) for
which the appellant was an applicant. He has alleged that:
i) Neither the IOCL nor the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas have
responded to numerous representations made by him ever since the
postponement of the interviews;
ii) Being a retired and dis-abled person, he was unable to pay bribe to the
officials of the respondent for gaining favour of allotment of dealership;
and
iii) In his attempts to find out the reasons for not holding the interview by the
IOCL, he has been unduly harassed by the officials of the respondent.
If you don’t ask, you don’t get – Mahatma Gandhi
1
4. In this backdrop, the appellant, through his RTI application dated
10.02.2009 asked for the following information:
i) How many candidates were found eleigible / shortlisted and called for
interview scheduled to be held on 23/4/99 (02.00 pm) at Tilyar Tourist
Complex against Defence Category Retd.
ii) Kindly furnish copies of interview letters so mailed against Defence
Category ROHATAK only.
iii) What were the reasons for postponing of interview , furnish with
authorities / orders issued in this regard.
iv) What was the next date fixed for interview duly approved by competent
authority, furnish copies of Note Sheets / Orders together with Call Letters
including Postal Receipts i.e. mailing proofs of same.
v) Why next/fresh date of interview could not be intimated separately to the
candidate / applicant ISHWAR LAL as guaranteed vide Notice dated
22/04/1999 referred above.
vi) What is the present position /fate/ status of applicant’s application No.
002322 dated 6/2/98 with Security Deposit Fee of Rs. 500/- paid vide
Banker Cheque (SBT U/E. Karnal) No. 298813 dated 4/2/98 fvg. IOCL.
vii) In whose favour the Award of said LPG Dealership / distributorship has
been made, furnish full details, address & copy of Award Letter with
approval on Note Sheets by the competent authority.
viii) With effect from 1998 furnish year-wise Award of LPG Dealerships /
Distributorships made/operating in Rohatak City/Station/Location i.e. how
many/much were in operation prior to the said advertisement and how
much (give numbers with details addresses) came into being / operation
after the said advt. give year-wise details with full addresses / Phone Nos.
ix) Kindly refer to your advt. dated 18/5/1999 by your Mktg. Divn. Northern
Region regarding cancellation of advertisements dated 30/12/97 & 8/5/98
inviting applications for award of an LPG distributorship of IOC for Indane
at Modinagar (GBD) under Defence Category and to allot the said
distributorship to one of the candidates who had applied in response to
advertisement dated 31.12.94. This was done in compliance of Hon’ble
Supreme Court orders passed in appeals Nos. 5234-35 of 1998. Please
supply a copy of said order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
apparently against the IOCL and in favour of concerned candidates who
had applied against advt. dated 31.12.94.
x) Please supply copy(s) of correspondence exchanged in between the IOCL
and the authorities/parties/candidates concerned including Note Sheets
with regard to your advt. under reference below subject at page-1 and
copies of further advts. Also if made in this regard.
5. The CPIO replied, as under, on 18.3.2009:
Answer 1 to 6 Information is not available in this office as the
records are not traceable.
2
Answer 7 No Indane LPG distributorship has been
commissioned under "defence Category at Rohatak
after 30/12/97.
Answer 8 Information furnished.
Answer 9-10 Information not available in this office as the
respective records are not traceable.
6. Being dis-satisfied with the CPIO’s response, the appellant submitted his
st
1 appeal on 16.4.09, and pleaded for providing complete information. The
Appellate Authority replied on 2.6.09 and stated that the CPIO has not provided
the information ‘as the files pertaining to this are not traceable. As per the RTI
Act, PIO is under obligation to provide the information, if the same is available
with the public authority. The PIO has maintained that the files are not traceable
and as such the information is not provided. Therefore, there is no merit in the
appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.”
7. In his appeal before the Commission, the appellant has alleged that CPIO
and Appellate Authority have refused to provide the information for malafied
reasons. The grounds for denial of information that the files are ‘not traceable’ or
‘available’ is not acceptable because the respondent is yet to decide the fate of
the applications submitted for the award of LPG dealership under the defence
category.
8. The appellant has also mentioned that the IOCL has, as yet, not indicated
the date of interviews for selection of dealership, as assured to the candidates
vide letter dated 22.4.99. The reasons, if any, for inordinate delay in conduct of
interviews or postponement of the decision in the matter or cancellation of the
proposed award of dealership have not been provided.
9. During the hearing, the appellant emphatically asked as to why the LPG
distributorship under the defence category at Rohatak could not be awarded,
while the decisions for other categories, the General and SC, have been taken by
the respondent, as per advertisement mentioned above.
10. The respondents stated that:
i) Till 2000, the award of LPG dealership was decided by the Selection
Board, which was constituted by the Government. The IOCL is therefore
not responsible for alleged delay or indecision in the matter.
ii) The relevant records and files are not traceable. The complete information
could not be furnished, therefore.
Decision:
11. The CPIO, Shri S.S. Bapat, has furnished partial information while the
remaining information has been refused on the ground that relevant files are not
3
traceable. Under section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, every public authority is required to
‘maintain all its records duly categorized and indexed in a manner and the
form which facilitates the right to information.’ In view of this, denial of
information on the basis of non-availability of records is not acceptable.
12. The fact that the respondent, i.e. IOCL had initiated the process of
allotment of dealership and it did complete the process in respect of all the
locations and categories, except Rohatak under defence category, for which the
appellant was one of the applicants. The appellant has been pursuing the matter
ever since the postponement of interviews in 1999. He has thus engaged the
respondent through various representations from time to time. Moreover, the
process of award of dealership under defence category for Rohtak has not been
completed as yet. It cannot be accepted therefore that the records and files have
been weeded out or not maintained or not traceable. In view of this, and what
has been averred by the appellant that due to alleged corrupt practices in
allotment of dealership, the appellant has been deprived of the opportunity of
final interview and possibly award of LPG dealership in his favour. The
respondents have not furnished the evidence of having made a sincere effort to
trace and search the relevant files and record. We therefore conclude that the
CPIO, Shri Bapat and the Appellate Authority Shri Gautam Datta have refused to
provide the desired information for malafied reasons, mainly to cover up
inefficiency or lack of accountability of the respondent, i.e. IOCL. If a CPIO’s
contention is accepted that information cannot be furnished because the file is
‘not traceable’, it would be impossible to implement the Act. And, dream of
setting out a practical regime for providing access to information held by a public
authority would be shattered.
13. The CPIO, Shri Bapat is held responsible for violation of section 7 (1) of
the Act since he has refused to provide the information without reasonable
cause. Shri Bapat is therefore directed to show cause as to why a maximum
penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on him for denial of information for
malafied reasons on the pretext of missing records. He should submit his
explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 24th
September, 2009 at 4.30 pm, failing which penalty would be imposed. In case
he has sought the assistance of the concerned officers, who may be deemed
PIO, u/s 5(4) of the Act, he should identify and advise them to be present in the
hearing to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed on them also, on the
ground of mis-management of records and/or creation of obstacles in sharing of
information.
14. The respondent, IOCL is also held responsible for improper record
management, due to which vital information relating to allotment of LPG
dealership have gone missing. This reflects both lack of proper record
management by the concerned officials who were associated with the LPG
dealership selection process as well as lackadaisical attitude of officials, who
chose to refuse the information on the ground that ‘files are not traceable’
4
which is not an acceptable ground for denial of information to the affected
persons. The respondents have also not submitted relevant evidence of having
made sincere efforts to search and trace the file.
15. We therefore hold that the respondents are suppressing vital facts for
malafied reasons. Due to this, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of
losses, including mental harassment and right to pursue a profession due to non-
availability of information, which is clearly related to his livelihood. He therefore
needs to be compensated, u/s 19 (8) (b) of the Act. The Chairman, IOCL or his
nominee, should therefore explain as to why a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand) should not be awarded to the appellant. The Chairman,
IOCL or his nominee, should submit an explanation at the earliest and also
appear for a personal hearing on the date and time indicated above, failing which
above amount of compensation would be awarded.
16. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name and address of parties: 2
1. Shri Ishwar Lal, 3, Old Housing Board Colony, Kanheli Road, Rohtak-
124001, Haryana.
2. Shri S.S. Bapat, General Manager & PIO, Delhi & Haryana State Office,
Indiaon Oil Corporation Ltd., World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane,
Babar Road, New Delhi-110001.
3. Shri Gautam Datta, Appellate Authority (RTI), IOCL, Marketing Division,
Head Office, G-9, Ali yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051.
4. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, 3079/3, JB
Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-110049.
All men by nature desire to know – Aristotle
5