Central Information CommissionVarun Krishna vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... on 18 December, 2020Author:Neeraj Kumar GuptaBench:Neeraj Kumar Guptaके   ीय सूचना आयोग\n                        Central Information Commission\n                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका\n                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nिशकायत सं या/Complaint No. CIC/ONGCL/C/2018/637375\n\nVarun Krishna                                            ...िशकायतकता/Complainant\n                                    VERSUS\n                                    बनाम\n                                                             ... ितवादी/Respondent\nCPIO, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation\nLimited, New Delhi.\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the complaint:-\n\nRTI : 28-11-2018           FA    : Not on record     Complaint: 21-12-2018\n\nCPIO : 10-12-2018          FAO : Not on record       Hearing: 08-12-2020\n\n                                  ORDER1.    The complainant filed an application under theRight to Information Act,\n2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Oil and\nNatural Gas Corporation Ltd., New Delhi seeking following information:-"(i) Subject matter of information: Pertaining to CIC Case Nos.CIC/ONGCL/C/2017/184996, CIC/ONGCL/C/2017/158011 &\n         CIC/ONGCL/C/2017/158045 Dtd 10.10.18.(ii) The period to which information relates: Date of receipt of\n         hearing notice up to 10.10.18.(iii)Description of Information required: Please provide following\n         certified copies:1. Total no. of the officials who participated in the subject hearing\n         from ONGC-Delhi along with copies of their permission letter\n         issued by the competent authority with copy of evidence of\n         dispatch and receipt of authorization letter.2. Last drawn basic salary and copy of attendance record for dt.\n         10.10.18 of each official mentioned at Sy. no.1".Page 1 of 52.     The CPIO responded on 10-12-2018. Thereafter, the complainant filed a\ncomplaint u/Section 18of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take\nappropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20of the RTI Act, 2005.\nHearing:3.     The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio\nconferencing. Mr. Mohan K. Kapoor, GM(HR)/Nodal Officer participated in the\nhearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written\nsubmissions are taken on record.4.     The complainant contended that the respondent has provided him a copy of\nthe CIC decision instead of providing the authorization letter issued by the\ncompetent authority based upon which each official had participated in the CIC\nhearing. Further, he contended that the then CPIO has provided him pay scale\ninstead of the basic salary of the officials and has also suppressed their attendance\nrecords. This indicates that the then CPIO has obstructed the information\ndeliberately, knowingly and with malafide intentions and therefore, penalty should\nbe imposed on the then CPIO u/Section 20of the RTI Act, 2005.5.     The respondent submitted that the other officials had participated in the\nhearing merely to assist the CPIO of the public authority and therefore, they have\nprovided a copy of the CIC decision indicating the name of the CPIO to whom the\nnotice was issued. Further, he submitted that the then CPIO had disclosed the Pay\nScale of the officials and therefore, there was no malafide intention to hide the\ninformation.Decision:6.       This Commission observes that the then CPIO has neither provided any\nspecific authorization letter nor has denied about its existence and instead, he has\nenclosed a copy of the CIC decision which indicates the name of the officials who\nhad participated on behalf of the ONGC. Further, it is noted that the then CPIO has\nprovided the Pay Scale of the officials instead of their basic salary which does not\nestablish any malafide denial of information. Though the attendance of the officials\nis reflected in the CIC order but the then CPIO has not mentioned about existence\nor non-existence of the attendance record. Therefore, it appears that the then CPIO\nhas not applied his mind and hence, a very strict warning is issued to the then\nCPIO to be more vigilant in future and not to contravene the provisions of theRTI\nAct, 2005. The complainant has pressed for imposition of penalty on the then\nCPIO, therefore, with regard to the situations governing imposition of penalty on\nthe CPIO underSection 20of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to thePage 2 of 5decision dated 01-06-2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)\n11271/2009 titled asRegistrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar\nGarg & Anr., wherein, it was held as under:-"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that\n         the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner\n         in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged\n         to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the\n         querist by resort toSection 610of the Companies Act, it could not\n         be said that the information had been withheld malafide or\n         deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the\n         PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold\n         the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be\n         provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC\n         eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it\n         cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice underSection 20of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The\n         legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides\n         or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable\n         cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the\n         information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or\n         misleading information or destroys the information, that the\n         personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly\n         not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs\n         in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a\n         sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the\n         public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They\n         would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under theRTI Actwith an independent mind and with objectivity. Such\n         consequences would not auger well for the future development\n         and growth of the regime that theRTI Actseeks to bring in, and\n         may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs\n         Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to\n         unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created\n         by theRTI Actin disrepute."Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inBhagat\nSingh v. CIC & Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:-"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in\n          releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the\n          orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate\n          Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the\n          nature of information sought. The materials on record clearlyPage 3 of 5show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third\n          respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the\n          Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely\n          denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the\n          Central Information Commission to initiate action underSection\n          20of the Act, cannot be issued."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision of Col.Rajendra\nSingh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., WP (C) 5469 of 2008\ndated 20-03-2009 has held as under:-"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and\n         direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted.\n         Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was\n         without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.\n         ...The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of\n         this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information\n         was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an\n         inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably\n         withholding it."7.      In light of the factual matrix of the complaint and the legal principles\nenunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the\nconclusion that there is no malafide denial of information. In view of this, no\naction underSection 20of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted in this case.8.    With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.9.    Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.नीरज कु मार गु ा)\n                                        Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा\n                                                                सूचना आयु )\n                                      Information Commissioner (सू\n\n                                                        दनांक / Date 08-12-2020\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)\n\nS. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),\n(011-26105682)Page 4 of 5Addresses of the parties:\n1.    The CPIO\n      Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited\n      DGM (HR) & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell\n      PDDU Urja Bhawan, Tower-A, 2nd Floor\n      Plot No. 5A & 5B, Nelson Mandela Marg\n      Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070\n\n\n\n2.    Varun KrishnaPage 5 of 5