Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4216/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000468
Dated, the 23rd July, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Girish Mittal
Name of the Public Authority: I.O.C.L.
i
Facts
:
1. The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 23/7/2009. But, the appellant
did not avail of this opportunity. The appeal is, therefore, examined on merit.
2. The appellant has asked for certain information in the form of various
queries. The information asked for relate to participation in strikes by the
respondent’s employees and related issues such as action taken against the
employees, who participated in the strikes. The CPIO and the Appellate
Authority have duly replied and furnished the information on the basis of
available records. There is, however, no denial of information. A part of
information pertaining to the employees working in the subsidiary organizations
of the respondent have not been furnished on the ground that the requested
information is not maintained in the office of the concerned CPIO.
3. In his appeal before the Commission, the appellant has pleaded as under:
“The Commission is prayed to direct the CPIO either to transfer the said
petition to the other public authorities, and provide the information.”
Decision:
4. A CPIO is expected to provide the information, as maintained in his office.
He may, however, transfer the RTI applications u/s 6(3), only when he is aware
of the public authorities which are the custodian of information. In case he is
uncertain about the custodian of information he is not liable to transfer the
application for information. It is for the information seeker to specify the required
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
information and identify as to which public authority is the custodian of
information. He should accordingly approach the concerned CPIO for the
desired information.
5. In view of this, the appellant’s plea for directing the CPIO of the
respondent to transfer the application to an un-known entity is rejected. The
appellant is advised to identify the public authority, whose transparency and
accountability, through the instrument of RTI, is being sought for.
6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Girish Mittal, 1305 Dhruv, Ashok Van, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400
066.
2. Shri. Satish Kumar, CPIO, I.O.C.L., Corporate Office, Plot No.3079/3,
Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi – 110 049.
3. Shri. V.C. Agrawal, Director (HR) & Appellate Authority, IOCL, Corporate
Office, Plot No.3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi – 110 049.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2