Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 5794/IC(A)/2010
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2010/000473, 474 & 475
Dated, the 24th August, 2010
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Manju Singh
Name of the Public Authority : (1) BPCL (2) IOCL (3) HPCL
Facts
:
1. The appellant submitted her RTI application dated 25.06.2009 to the CPIO
of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, who in turn, transferred the application
u/s 6(3) of the Act to three Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), namely BPCL,
IOCL and HPCL.
2. The CPIOs of the respondents have duly replied and furnished partial
information with which the appellant is not satisfied. She has therefore submitted
three separate appeals before the Commission, which are examined together.
3. All the appeals were scheduled for hearing on 23rd August, 2010. The
appellant and the CPIO of IOCL were present in person. Since the CPIOs of
BPCL and HPCL could not attend the hearing, the responses given by them were
examined.
4. In the course of hearing, it was noted that the CPIOs have replied and
furnished partial information on the basis of available records. There is no denial
of information under section 8 (1) of the Act. The appellant agreed to clearly
specify the information, which has not been furnished to her, as yet. Accordingly,
she would re-submit a list of required documents.
Decision:
5. The appellant has submitted a long RTI application, which contains more
than thirty paragraphs. She has made certain observations under each para, in
end of which she has attempted to seek the views of the CPIOs who have
willingly expressed their opinion also. But, the appellant is not satisfied.
1
6. As agreed between the parties, the appellant would re-submit a list of
required information to the CPIOs of respective Oil Marketing Companies. The
appellant should ensure that the information is clearly specified as per section 2
(f) of the Act, which requires that the information should be available in any
material form. She should refrain from eliciting opinion of the CPIOs in respect of
the issues framed by her, as attempted in the instant case.
7. The CPIOs of the respondents would furnish the information within one
month from the date of receipt of fresh application from the appellant. In order to
satisfy herself with the availability of information, the appellant would also be free
to inspect the relevant records on a date time convenient to both the parties.
4. With these observations, all the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioneri
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Smt. Manju Singh, 1/603, 2nd Floor, Hamilton Road, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi-110006.
2. Shri Vinod Giri, GM (Mktg. Corporate) & CPIO, BPCL, Bharat Bhawan, 4
& 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. (Ref. No.
BPCLD/R/2009/0788 Dt. 18.8.09).
3. Shri P.K. Julka, GM (Planning) & PIO, IOCL HO, Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9,
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. (Ref.
SKS/RTI/2009/1122 Dt. 24.8.09).
4. Shri Sudhakar P. Donadkar, DGM (RS) & CPIO, HPCL, 8 Shoorji
Vallabhdas Marg, Mumbai-400001. (Ref. Nil Dt. 12.10.09)i
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle2