Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No.5622/IC(A)/2010 dated 16/7/2010)
Decision No.5817/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2010/000283
Dated, the 30th August, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mohammed Kutty
Name of the Public Authority: Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Decision: i
1. In our Decision No.5622/IC(A)/2010 dated 16/7/2010, the following
observations were made:
"Decision:
8. The averments made during the hearing and the evidences on
record clearly indicate contradictory responses by the officials of the
respondents. First, the CPIO refused to provide the information u/s 8(1)(j)
of the Act. The FAA of the respondent rejected and reversed the decision
of the CPIO and ordered for disclosure of information. The order of FAA
has not been complied with, however. Second, in his submission before
the Commission, the CPIO who earlier rejected the appellant’s application
for information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act has now stated that “perhaps the list
was destroyed”, which is questionable. If the relevant information was not
maintained, why was it not reported or mentioned in the initial response of
the CPIO to the appellant? Even the FAA has not made a mention of this
point as to whether the information in question has been destroyed or not.
The FAA has rejected the contention of the CPIO and order for providing
the information. There is, therefore, no ground to believe that the
information is not maintained or available. The CPIO has indeed lied or
mis-informed with a view to suppressing the information relating to the
recruitment process and merit list of selected candidates.
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
9. It also emerged during the hearing that as many as five persons
were appointed out of the list of 18 candidates, whose names were
supplied to the respondent by the Employment Exchange. There are
reasons to believe that the concerned list of appointees may be available
in the concerned file of the candidates who were appointed by the
Selection Committee on the above mentioned date. The fact that the FAA
has also ordered for disclosure of the information makes us believe that
the relevant information are available with the respondents. The CPIO
has deliberately chosen to withhold the information on the pretext of non-
availability of information, which is not acceptable. The CPIO is,
therefore, directed to furnish the information asked for, as per the
order of the FAA, at the earliest.
10. In view of the above, the CPIO is also held responsible for violation
of section 7(1) of the Act as he has not furnished the information even
after a lapse of over six months of the passage of the order of the FAA.
He should, therefore, explain 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 without any reasonable
cause. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear
for a personal hearing on 26th August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which
the above amount of penalty would be imposed on him.
11. The CPIO has failed to carry out the directions of his superior
officer, the FAA. This tantamounts to insubordination, and is unbecoming
of an officer holding the charge of the CPIO also. The respondent’s
Chairman is directed u/s 20(2) of the Act, to take appropriate action, under
the service rules, against the CPIO, who has failed to implement the
decision of the FAA dated 11/12/2009.
12. The Commission also holds that the appellant has unnecessarily
suffered all kinds of harassment in pursuing his RTI applications, including
filing of 1st and 2nd appeals. Had he been given the information, as per the
order of the FAA, he would not have filed the second appeal before the
Commission and traveled a long distance for attending the hearings in the
Commission, for accessing information that are directly connected with
right to work and earn for living. It is due to lack of both transparency in
the selection process and responsiveness of the officials of the
respondent to the information seekers that the appellant has
unnecessarily suffered and wasted time and resources for obtaining
information from the respondent.
13. The Chairman, IOCL, or his nominee, should therefore explain as
to why an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only)
should not be awarded, u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, as compensation to the
appellant for detriment suffered by him in seeking information from the
2
respondent. The Chairman, IOCL, or his nominee should submit an
explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 26th
August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which the above amount of
compensation would be awarded to the appellant on account of all kinds
of losses suffered by him. The appellant may also be present in the
hearing.”
2. In response to the show-cause notice, as above, the parties were heard
on 26.8.2010. The following were present:
Appellant' representatives: Adv. Jose Abraham
Sh. K. Padmanabhan
Respondents Sh. K. Manickam, CPIO
Sh. Dilip Hari, DGM (HR)
Ms. C. Vishalakshi, DGM (HR)
Sh. S.K. Khare, DGM (ER)
Sh. K. Somaiah
Sh. M.S. Venkatraman, Mgr (ER)
Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Law Officer.
3. The representatives of the respondent, IOCL, stated that a committee was
constituted to search and trace the document, mainly the merit list, but of no
avail. The search committee has observed, as under, in its report dated
16/8/2010:
“The Committee also searched in the nearby sections to the Personnel
Section, whether there is any possibility of mix up of files. However, the
confidential file pertaining to selection of Junior Operator (F) at Calicut BP
could not be located. Despite the extensive search made by us from all
possible sources, the committee could not trace the file.”
4. If the document in question does not exist due to weeding out processes
of confidential files, why was it not informed by the CPIO, who refused to disclose
information u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. Or, why did the Appellate Authority ordered for
disclosure of information, when it was non-existent? Even if it is accepted that
the document in question was not traceable or misplaced, as the search
committee has noted, the respondent IOCL cannot be absolved of the
responsibility of providing correct information. Because of the contradictory
responses, the appellant has had to pursue the matter at different levels,
including this Commission, in search of truth.
5. In my opinion, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses in
seeking information and pursuing the matter under the provisions of the Act. The
appellant has wasted considerable amount of time and resources for accessing
the document, for which he has the right under the Act. The respondents have
3
given confusing and contradictory responses, which are attributable to malafied
intensions. For the detriments suffered by the appellant, an amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) is therefore awarded, u/s 19(8)
(b) of the Act, to the appellant, Shri. Mohammed Kutty, to compensate for all
kinds of losses, including mental and physical harassment in seeking the
information. The respondent, IOCL Chairman is directed to arrange to pay
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the
appellant, Shri. Mohammed Kutty, through a bank draft on or before 30 th
September, 2010, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum would be
applicable. A compliance report in this regard should also be submitted to the
Commission at the earliest, failing which appropriate action would be initiated.
6. The CPIO, Shri. K. Manickam, has admitted, with regret, that he has erred
in sending the initial response without ascertaining the availability of information
from the concerned department. In view of what the CPIO has submitted, orally
and in writing, we accept his explanation and the penalty proceedings u/s 20(1)
of the Act, is therefore dropped. He ought to be careful and truthful in
implementing the provisions of the Act.
7. An information, which is non-existent, cannot be furnished. The matter
should thus be closed. However, the respondent IOCL is advised u/s 25(5) of
the Act to streamline its record management system such that the sharing of
information becomes easier and faster with a view to promoting free flow of
information, as per the intent of the RTI Act.
8. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissionerii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Mohammed Kutty, Karuvathil House, Padiramanna, P.O.
Puzhakkattiri, Via. Angadippuram, Dist. Malappuram.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
4
2. Shri. K. Manickam, CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing
Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road
(Nungambakkam High road), Chennai – 600 034.
3. Shri. P. Rajendran, Appellate Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma
Gandhi Road (Nungambakkam High road), Chennai – 600 034.
4. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3079/3 J.B. Tito Marg,
Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi – 110 409.
5