Information pertaining to verification of LPG consumers - PIO: names of consumers denied u/s 8(1)(d); inspection of records offered regarding list of consumers who booked cylinders for home delivery during a particular period - CIC: show cause for delay
25 Feb, 2014Information pertaining to verification of consumers of LPG domestic / commercial connections in respect of two gas agencies was sought - PIO: disclosure of names of consumers was denied u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; ; the list of consumers who booked cylinders for home delivery during a particular period was denied as voluminous information under the provisions of Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. ; inspection of the relevant records was offered - CIC: show-cause notice u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. for delay
ORDER
Shri Girish Nautiyal, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 26.4.2013 before the Commission against the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), UP State Office-II, Noida for not providing information in response to his RTI-application dated 29.12.2012. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Umesh C.S. Bisht, Sr. I.S. Manager, Shri Sukrit Dutt, CM (LPG-S) and Ms. Namiya Kumar, AM (Law).
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 29.12.2012 sought information on thirteen queries pertaining to verification of consumers of LPG domestic/ commercial connections in respect of M/s. Shiva Gas Services and M/s. Jagdamba Indane Gas Agency, Dehradun; he also sought list of consumers verified by these two LPG Agencies, he wanted to know how many connections have been cancelled/ locked, and how many consumers booked LPG cylinders during April 2005 to November 2011 for home delivery etc.
3. Aggrieved with non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 4.3.2013 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order dated 8.4.2013 dismissed the appellant’s first appeal on the grounds that no RTI application dated 29.12.2012 has been received by the CPIO. The appellant thereafter approached the Uttrakhand Information Commission on 25.4.2013. The Uttrakhand Information Commission vide letter dated 29.4.2013 forwarded appellant’s petition to the District Supply Officer, Dehradun, who in turn transferred the appellant’s petition to the CPIO, IOCL, Noida vide letter dated 20.5.2013. Thereafter the CPIO/IOCL vide letter No. UPSO-II/RTI/4544 dated 23.7.2013 replied to the appellant, informing him in reply to on Point No. 1 the total number of consumers verified by the said agencies and also allowed inspection of the verified consumers. In reply to Point no. 2 the CPIO provided the number of connections suspended/ cancelled. However, disclosure of names of consumers was denied u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. In reply to Pont No. 9 pertaining to the number of cylinders booked for home delivery for domestic consumers during the period April 2005 November, 2011, the CPIO provided the total numbers of cylinders booked for home delivery for domestic consumers, however the list of such consumers has been denied to the appellant on the grounds of voluminous information under the provisions of Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act. However, the CPIO has offered inspection of the relevant records. On remaining points the CPIO has provided requisite information to the appellant. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the FAA against the order of the CPIO. The FAA vide order dated 31.10.2013 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that information as sought for by the appellant on Point No. 2 of the RTI application is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act and not u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; as quoted by the CPIO. On remaining points requisite information has been provided to the appellant by the CPIO. However, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to once again provide an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of relevant records in respect of Point No. 1 and 9 of the RTI application on a mutually convenient date and time and to provide copies documents identified by the appellant on payment of requisite fees. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order.
5. There has been a delay of 23 days on the part of the CPIO in furnishing reply to the appellant. A separate show-cause notice u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act would be issued to the Deputy General Manager/ CPIO, asking him to showcause why a penalty of Rs. 5750/- [23 x 250] should not be imposed upon him.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Girish Nautiyal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., in Case No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001174/SS