Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.5375/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2010/000033
Dated, the 30th April, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Karam Chand
Name of the Public Authority: B.P.C.L.
Facts
: i
1. The appellant was heard on 30/4/2010.
2. The appellant stated that he had submitted a complaint dated 15/4/2009
for investigation of irregularities in allotment of LPG Dealership. He alleged that
in spite of his oft repeated complaints regarding mal-practices committed by the
dealers, no action has been taken by the respondents. Therefore, he sought for
details of action taken on his complaint through an RTI application dated June
30, 2009. The CPIO replied on 14.8.09 as under:
“This is with reference to your letter dated 30.06.09 seeking information
under Right to Information Act, our comments are as under:
We have vide our letter dated 10.6.09 advised you to contact our Territory
Manager, Piyala for redressing your grievance.
In view of above, we have nothing more to add.
Appeal against the aforesaid rejection under Sec. 19 of the Act, lies
before Director HR, the Appellate Authority of Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd., Bharat Bhavan -1, 2nd floor, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 1. The said
appeal is required to be submitted within 30 days from the date of
rejection.”
3. Subsequently, the appellant submitted his first appeal, in response to
which the Appellate Authority of the respondent made the following observations:
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi1
“I refer to your aforesaid appeal received by me on 12-8-2009. The
appeal has been filed on the grounds that information sought vide your
letter dated 22-04-2009 from Public Information Officer, BPCL, Mumbai
has not been provided to you with in the prescribed period.
I have considered your appeal and find that CPIO has replied to your said
application vide order BPCLD / R / 2008 / 000778 dated 14th August, 2009
(Copy Enclosed). I trust that you would have received the same by now.
With the copy of this letter, I am advising CPIO to adhere to prescribed
time schedule for disposal of application.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.”
4. Being dissatisfied with the above responses, the appellant filed his second
appeal before the Commission. During the hearing, he stated that the
respondent’s have adopted an evasive approach to deny the information asked
for by him. He, therefore, pleaded for: (i) providing complete information as
asked for by him vide his letter dated June 30, 2009; and (ii) initiate penalty
proceedings against the CPIO for deemed refusal of the information.
Decision:
5. The responses given by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, as quoted
above, clearly demonstrate that they have evaded the responsibility of providing
a point-wise response as asked for by the appellant. This has unnecessarily
resulted in filing of second appeal before the Commission. Had the CPIO made
a sincere attempt to respond to the RTI application, the appellant would not have
submitted the first appeal before the Appellate Authority of the respondent, who
has also not made sincere attempt to provide the information which relate to
alleged irregularities in allotment of LPG dealership and mal-practices in
distribution of LPG cylinders.
6. The CPIO is, therefore, held responsible for denial of information without
any reasonable cause which is attributable to malafied reasons, as the matter
pertains to alleged corrupt practices. The CPIO, Sh. Vinod Giri is therefore
directed to show cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only)should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act
for deemed refusal of information through such evasive tactics as passing on
responsibilities to provide the information on some other officials, who too have
not bothered to provide the information. Sh. Vinod Giri is therefore directed to
submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on
May 31, 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which penalty would be imposed on him. The
appellant may also be present.
2
7. In case he has sought the assistance of any other officials for providing
the information u/s 5(4) of the Act, he should clearly identify such officials and
submit the relevant evidence in this regard. He should also inform the concerned
official to appear for personal hearing in the matter and to explain as to why
penalty should not be imposed on them also.
8. He is also directed to furnish a point-wise response in respect of the RTI
application dated June 30, 2009 on the basis of available records, including the
details of action taken, if any, on the appellant’s complaint dated 15.4.2009.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissionerii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. Karam Chand, 1/603, 2nd floor, Hamilton Road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi –
110 006.
2. Sh. Vinod Giri, CPIO, BPCL, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road,
Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai – 400 001.
3. Sh. S. Mohan, Appellate Authority, BPCL, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6
Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai – 400 001.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
3