Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 3199 /IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/01022, 1023, 1025, 1031-1035, 1043 & 1044
Dated, the 1st September, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ajay Sharma
Name of the Public Authority : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Facts
:
1. The case was heard in absence of the appellant today, i.e. 01.09.2008.
2. The appellant has submitted atleast 10 appeals against the decisions of the
respondent, which are examined together for the sake of convenience. The CPIO
stated that the appellant has asked for huge information through different RTI
applications. The information asked for relate to sanctioned strength of employees at
different levels and the details of functioning of canteen. He stated that the
information asked for is not in public interest, hence, it has been denied. He also
stated that the appellant is associated with an employees union and because of the
rivalry between the unions, the information may be misused against other rival party
or the management, hence, disclosure of information is not in public interest.
3. In the course of hearing, it also emerged that a large amount of information
asked for should be put in public domain in compliance of with section 4 (1) of the
Act. Moreover, the information relating to the management of canteen should not be
treated as confidential.
Decision:
1
4. On perusal of the documents submitted by the parties, it is noted that both the
parties have erred. The appellant has unnecessarily submitted multiple applications
for seeking information relating to canteen and staffing pattern, which are not
confidential. The appellant should have asked for the information through a single
application and also submitted only one appeal before the Commission against the
If you don’t ask, you don’t get – Mahatma Gandhi
1
decision of the respondent, which could have economize the resources in seeking
and providing the information. Likewise, the CPIO could have given a
comprehensive response in respect of all the appeals, rather then giving an identical
reply in all the cases.
5. In view of the foregoing, the appellant is advised to prepare a comprehensive
list of required information and resubmit to the CPIO, who should provide a point-
wise response and thus furnish the information on the basis of available records
within 15 working days from the date of receipt of fresh application. If any
information is to be denied, the reasons for doing so should clearly be indicated for
review, if necessary, by the Commission.
6. The appellant should not make attempts to seek views and opinion of the
CPIO through various forms of queries. He should be free to seek inspection of
relevant records and files so as to clearly specify the required information. The CPIO
should allow inspection of records.
7. With these observations, all the appeals are thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
2
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name and address of parties:
1. Shri A. Ajay Sarma, Door No. 28-6-8, Yellammathota, Visakhapatnam-
530020.
2. Shri Shri M.K. Surana, General Manager Operations & CPIO, Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vishakha Refinary, P.B. No. 15,
Vishakhapatnam-530011 ( A.P. )All men by nature desire to know – Aristotle
2