Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000521 File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000739 File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/001056 File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/000803 File No. CIC/SH/A/2016/001067 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19) Date of hearing Date of decision : : 2nd September 2016 2nd September 2016 Name of the Appellant : Shri Sajjan Kumar Sodani, S/o. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sodani, Bigod, Mandalgarh, Distt-Bhilwara, Rajsathan- 3020115 Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : Central Public Information Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Ajmer LPG Regional Office, Vill-Gadheri, Nasirabad, Distt-Ajmer, Rajasthan The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Bhilwara. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Jaipur. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI Applications dated 2.12.2015, 1.10.2015, 2.11.2015, 20.11.2015, 14.11.2015 and 14.12.2015, filed by the Appellant seeking information regarding LPG supply, with particular reference to the gas agency, M/s Rekha HP Gas Services and related issues. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in all the six cases. 2. With regard to the RTI application dated 2.12.2015 (File No. 1003), the Appellant stated that the information has been received by him and the matter may be closed. Accordingly, we treat this matter as closed.
3. In regard to the RTI application dated 1.10.2015 (File No. 521), the Appellant stated that information on point No. 3 has not been provided to him. At this point, he had sought information regarding the inspection of M/s Rekha HP Gas Services carried out by the Respondents over the last two years, the irregularities found during the same and the action taken in respect of those irregularities. The Respondents reiterated the decision of the CPIO to deny this information on the ground that it pertained to a third party (M/s Rekha HP Gas Services) and the said party had asked them not to provide the information to the Appellant. The CPIO also claimed exemption from disclosure of the information under Section 8 (1) (d). In response to our query, the Respondents acknowledged that the Appellant is a consumer, who has had certain complaints regarding gas supply. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and note that the information sought is regarding the findings of the Respondents during their inspections and action taken on the same. It is not information provided by M/s Rekha HP Gas Services. The Respondents have not justified invocation of Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. In any case, we are of the view that since such gas distributors serve a large number of customers, disclosure of the information regarding the irregularities committed by them and the action taken by the Respondents to rectify the same is a matter of larger public interest. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to inform the Appellant about the irregularities that were found during the inspections (without revealing the identity of any other customers of the agency) and the action taken by the Respondents to rectify each of the irregularities. 4. In regard to the RTI application dated 2.11.2015 (File No. 739), the Appellant stated that the Respondents asked him to deposit photocopying charges of Rs. 3904/-
to get the information running into 1952 pages in response to point No. 1. He submitted that the above demand was not made within the stipulated period. However, we note that the RTI application was dated 2.11.2015 and taking into account the period of a day or two that an application may take to reach the CPIO, the CPIO s reply was timely and was dated 2.12.2015. Therefore, the Appellant was advised to pay the photocopying charges in case he wishes to get the information. 5. The Appellant did not appear to possess a copy of his RTI application dated 20.11.2015 (File No. 1056), in which he had sought information on two points. On being asked by us repeatedly to make his submissions regarding this application, he merely stated that he did not get the information. The Respondents also stated that they did not receive the above application from the Appellant. The Appellant may send a copy of the RTI application dated 20.11.2015, containing two queries, to the CPIO. In the event of his doing so, the CPIO is directed to respond to it in keeping with the provisions of the RTI Act, within thirty days of its receipt from the Appellant. 6. In regard to the RTI application dated 14.11.2015 (File No. 803), the Appellant stated that the information on points No. 1 and 3 was not provided to him. At point No. 1, he had sought information regarding the inspection of M/s Rekha HP Gas Services carried out by the Respondents during the last two years, irregularities found during the same and action taken to rectify the said irregularities. At point No. 3, the information sought was regarding suspension of the gas agency from 24.2.2012 to 30.6.2012 and rules and regulations under which it was restored. The Respondents submitted that the above information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act and the gas agency had also asked them not to disclose this
information. As regards point No. 1, we note that a similar query was made in the Appellant s RTI application dated 1.10.2015 and in paragraph 3 above, we have directed the CPIO to provide the information mentioned therein. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to pass a directive on the same query made in the RTI application dated 14.11.2015, barely six weeks after the RTI application dated 1.10.2015. As regards point No. 3, the Respondents stated that the agency was suspended because the district authorities had, on inspection, pointed out irregularities in the home delivery of gas. In our view, this is not information provided to the Respondents by the gas agency. In any case, since gas distributors service a large number of consumers, disclosure of the information sought at point No. 3 is a matter of larger public interest. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to inform the Appellant about the reason(s) for suspension of the gas agency and provide him a copy of the rules and regulations under which it was restored. 7. Concerning the RTI application dated 14.12.2015 (File No. 1067), the Appellant stated that no information was provided to him. It is seen that the information sought at three points was regarding the action taken by the Respondents on a complaint dated 26.10.2015 filed by the Appellant against M/s Rekha HP Gas Services, the deficiencies found during the enquiry, certified copy of the show cause notice given to the agency, their response to the said notice and action taken by the Respondents against them. The entire information was denied by the CPIO on the ground that it pertained to a third party, who had asked the Respondents not to disclose it. The CPIO also claimed exemption from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d). We have considered the records and the submissions of both the parties and note that
the Respondents have not justified invocation of Section 8 (1) (d). Further, since the complaint was made by the Appellant, he has the right to know the action that was taken on the same by the Respondents and their findings. In response to our query, the Respondents acknowledged that some allegations made by the Appellant were found to be true. In our view, the information sought was not information provided by the third party, but regarding an enquiry conducted by the Respondents. In any case, since gas distributors service a large number of consumers, in our view, disclosure of such information is also a matter of larger public interest. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to facilitate inspection by the Appellant of all the documents concerning the action taken by the Respondents on his complaint dated 26.10.2015. After the inspection, he should be given photocopies of the inspected documents, desired by him, free of charge. 8. The CPIO should comply with our directives in the preceding paragraphs, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With the exception of the information mentioned at paragraph 4 above, the remaining information should be provided free of charge. 9. With the above directions and observations, the six appeals are disposed of. 10. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/- (Sharat Sabharwal) 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. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar