CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/002262
Appellant : Shri Virendra Kumar Dixit
Public Authority : HPCL, Bhopal.
Date of hearing : 18.10.2011
Date of Decision : 18.10.2011
Facts
:-
Heard today dated 18.10.2011. Appellant not present. HPCL is represented by
Shri Krishan Lal, Regional Manager, Jabalpur(CPIO). He is heard and the records
perused.
2. There are two RTI applications in the Commission’s record. One is dated
2.12.2009 in which the appellant had sought information on 09 paras. Another
application is dated 3.12.2009 in which the appellant had sought information on 04 paras,
each para having a number of sub paras. The queries raised by the appellant aim to
solicit information about the selection process of retail outlet dealership, particularly, in
respect of ‘Hamara Pump”.
3. The CPIO’s response is not available in the Commission’s file. The same is put
up before this Commission by Shri Krishan Lal. I am disappointed to note that the CPIO
had taken the view that only one query was required to be responded to by him against
payment of Rs.10/-. Para 02 of the CPIO’s letter is reproduced below :-
“As per norms under RTI, we are required to reply to one query for the payment
of Rs.10/-. Therefore, please specify to which query we should reply. For
obtaining copies of documents, you have to make payment of Rs.2/- per page by
D.D. or Banker’s cheque drawn in our favour payable at Bhopal.”
4. The view taken by the CPIO is totally contrary to the provisions of law. It needs
to be underlined that the Central Government has prescribed a fee of Rs.10/- for filing an
RTI application. Neither the Act nor the Rules framed there-under restrict the number of
queries to be raised by the information seeker. The information seeker can seek
information on any number of points/queries against payment of fee of Rs. 10/-. The
order passed by the CPIO, therefore, is not sustainable in law and is set aside.
5. I have also gone through order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Appellate
Authority. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority also fallen into the same trap. The
operative para of his order is reproduced below :-
“I have carefully perused your application dated 3.12.2009, your Appeal and the
said reply dated 22.12.2009 from our Bhopal Regional office. As per Clause 6(1)
of the RTI Act, multiple request cannot be made in one application. Your
application contains 14 requests/queries and payment has been made for only
1(one) request. Therefore the CPIO vide letter dated 22.12.2009 requested you to
specify to which query you sought information. On receipt of your response, the
CPIO will respond to you as per the provisions of the RTI Act.”
6. Needless to say, the Appellate Authority totally misguided and misdirected
himself in passing the impugned order.
7. During the hearing, Shri Krishan Lal submits that the appellant was one of the
candidates for retail outlet dealership and was selected. Letter of Intent was also issued
to him but as he could not provide the requisite land, the LoI was withdrawn.
8. In the premises, it would be expedient that he is given inspection of the entire
records and to take extracts there-from as per his requirement. However, personal
documents relating to other candidates such as Income Tax Returns, Property Statement,
Bank Statement, PAN card etc. would not be allowed to be inspected.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this
Commission.
( K.L. Das )
Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Chief Regional Manager & CPIO,
HPCL, Gautam Nagar, Govindpura,
Bhopal-462023.
2. Shri Virendra Kumar Dixit, s/o late Sh. Prabhudayal Dixit,
Dixit Colony, Tikamgarh-472001,
Madhya Pradesh.