Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.5343/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2010/000024
Dated, the 26th April, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Subhash Chandra Agrawal
Name of the Public Authority: M/o Petroleum & Natural Gas
Facts
: i
1. The case was heard on 21/4/2010 in absence of the petitioner. The
following emerged during the hearing:
2. The petitioner has sought for CPIO’s opinion in the form of confirmation or
denial to various questions/issues, which relate to pricing policy on Natural Gas.
The queries are based on, and are indeed assertion of, an advertisement which
was carried out in daily newspapers on behalf of shareholders of Reliance
Industries, a private company. This advertisement appeared on the eve of
hearing in the Supreme Court. The contents and the time of appearance of the
advertisement in different newspapers on August 17, 2009 are allegedly an
attempt to launch a propaganda and spread misinformation against the
Government’s policies on Natural Gas, which are disputed and therefore pending
before the Court for adjudication.
3. The queries made by the petitioner relate to the activities of more than one
public authorities and, therefore, the RTI application was transferred u/s 6(3) of
the Act, as per the petitioner’s request. Being dissatisfied with the responses,
the petitioner has submitted a complaint u/s 18 of the Act, and pleaded before
the Commission for fixing up the responsibilities on a CPIO for providing the
information.
4. The CPIO also stated during the hearing that:
(i) In response to the said advertisement dated 17/8/2009, which was an
attempt to mislead the general public, the relevant issues were clarified
by the government through a press release dated 21/8/2009. Had thei
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi1
petitioner taken note of the clarifications, which were promptly provided
and publicized by the government, the need for putting up unnecessary
pressure on the government through RTI petitions could have been
avoided.
(ii) The timings of the said advertisement dated 17/8/2009 and the RTI
application on the same day, on the eve of Supreme Court hearings,
demonstrate that the petitioner is lobbying for the private company,
which is a party to a dispute in the matter of pricing policy on Natural
Gas.
(iii) As per the direction of the First Appellate Authority, the CPIO has
furnished a point-wise response and as such there is no denial of
information u/s 8(1) of the Act.
(iv) In response to the RTI application dated 17/8/2009 and the
subsequent representations by the petitioner, the respondents have
furnished the information vide letters dated August 27, October 5,
December 22, 2009, January 22, February 3 and February 26, 2010.
While the respondents were making every effort to furnish the
information, as sought for, the petitioner approached the CIC also
without revealing the fact that the respondents had made every
attempt to satisfy the information needs of the petitioner.
(v) The fact that the petitioner has neither made any oral or written
submissions before the Commission nor he has responded to the
notice for hearing to avoid any possible cross-examination in the
matter, shows that the petitioner has not approached the Commission
in clean hands.
Decision:
5. The evidence of record shows that the averments made by the
respondents are difficult to refute as they are supported by the facts.
First, the petitioner has simultaneously put up complaint u/s 18 of the Act
before the Commission and also filed 1st appeal before the respondent. If
the petitioner was not sure as to which public authority was responsible for
providing the information, he could have waited for the Commission’s
direction, as sought, on his complaint petition before this Commission. It
is not clear as to what was the intention behind putting up petitions before
the concerned public authorities and the Commission as well, especially
when the issues raised by him were not only clarified by the CPIO’s
responses but also pending before the Court for adjudication.
Second, when the petitioner had filed his first appeal as per the provisions
of the Act, in response to which a point-wise response was also furnished,
the petitioner could have informed the Commission so that due
cognizance could have been taken during the hearing in the matter of his
complaint petition. It is not understandable as to why the petitioner has
2
shied away from revealing the truth before the Commission, of which he
has had full knowledge.
Third, in response to the alleged misleading advertisement dated
17/8/2009, the government had clarified the issues raised therein vide its
press release dated 21/8/2009. The public at large was advised inter alia
as under:
” The Government of India is committed to upholding the rule of
law. It cannot enter into needless and unnecessary controversies.
Suffice it to say that parties to a dispute would be well advised to
reserve restraint in the matter of projection of facts as well as
inferences. In view of the fact that the matter is sub-judice before
the Supreme Court, the Government of India has issued the above
limited clarification so that there is no element of pubic
misinformation.”
In spite of the above advisory, the petitioner continued to put pressure on
the public authorities to extract and elicit views of the officials in respect of
various queries that might serve the interest of the private entities which
carried out the advertisement as a propaganda stunt against the
Government.
Fourth, the desired information are not specified as per section 2(f) of the
Act, which requires that the information should be available in any material
form. The petitioner has attempted to seek views and opinion of the CPIO
on issues which are disputed and pending before the Court for
adjudication. The petitioner cannot be so ignorant of the facts that are
widely reported in the media. We are, therefore, of the view that the
petitioner has misused the provisions of the Act for promotion of personal
interests at the costs of general tax payers.
Fifth, on an issue on which directions of the Supreme Court is awaited, the
views and opinion of the CPIO should not have been sought. This is more
so because such queries are not covered under the definition of
information u/s 2(f) of the Act.
6. The petitioner has withheld certain information relating to his RTI petition
and the action taken thereon by the public authorities. While he himself may be
keen to seek transparency and access to information held by the Government,
he is rather secretive or shy about his own actions, conduct and behaviour in the
matter, which is an unfair practice.
7. In response to the notice for hearing, by which time the desired
information was in his hands, he has deliberately maintained silence, which
seems to be a clever move on his part. This tantamounts to not only misleading
3
the Commission but also misusing the RTI Act, which is most unfortunate. It is
such types of bulging petitions with which this Commission is unduly burdened.
8. Since the CPIO has furnished the information asked for on the basis of
available records and that there is no denial of information u/s 8(1) of the Act, this
complaint petition is considered unnecessary and is thus dismissed.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissionerii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, 1775 Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi – 110 006.
2. Sh. S.M. Sundaram, CPIO, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri
Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Director & Appellate Authority, M/o Petroleum &
Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
4