Central Information CommissionRam Narayan Meena vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... on 14 January, 2020के ी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\nि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/ONGCL/A/2018/139241-BJ\n\nMr. Ram Narayan Meena, Ex-DGM (F&A)\n\n                                                                               ....अपीलकता/Appellant\n                                              VERSUS\n                                               बनाम\n1.       CPIO & CM, HR- 1 C/HR-ER\n         Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited,\n         ONGC Tel Bhawan, Dehradun\n         Uttarakhand - 248003\n\n2.       CPIO\n         Dy. GM (Legal), Nodal Officer\n         Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited,\n         1st Floor, Tower - A, Deendayal Urja Bhawan\n         5, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj\n         New Delhi - 110070\n                                                                           ... ितवादीगण /Respondent\n\nDate of Hearing        :                       13.01.2020\nDate of Decision       :                       14.01.2020\n\nDate of RTI application                                                         29.11.2017\nCPIO's response                                                                 12.01.2018\nDate of the First Appeal                                                        23.01.2018\nFirst Appellate Authority's response                                            20.03.2018\nDate of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission                            20.06.2018\n\n                                             ORDERFACTS:The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding recoveries of White Goods\nmore than its capital cost in the form of WGV Adjustment, WDV, Rent recovery, tax on perquisites\non concessional rent, depreciation in the books of ONGC and resultant tax benefit availed by ONGC\nplus tax on perquisites on transfer of assets on his superannuation for the period 2009-2016.The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.01.2018, stated that no suitable documents could be found to be\nsupplied in respect of the queries raised but a copy of the scheme could be provided, if the Appellant\ndesired so. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA,\nvide its order dated 20.03.2018, referred the application to I/s Hqrs., Finance, Dehradun, stating thatPage 1 of 4the matter pertains to grievance of the Appellant and directed it to be examined critically to give a\nsuitable reply to him. Subsequently, the DGM (Fin), vide its letter dated 06.06.2018 after critically\nexamining the Appeal, provided a point-wise reply.HEARING:Facts emerging during the hearing:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. Ram Narayan Meena through VC;Respondent: Mr. Parmesh Uniyal, Sr. HR, Dehradun and Mr. Manjeet Singh, Manager (Fin.),\nDehradun through VC; and Mr. K. S. Sonkar, DGM (Legal) & Nodal Officer, New Delhi in person;The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that his grievance in respect\nof the scheme floated by ONGC regarding purchase of welfare furniture and household goods\npurchase scheme of 17.08.2009 had not been resolved satisfactorily. He acknowledged the receipt of\nreplies of the CPIO / FAA as also the reply from DGM (Fin) dated 06.06.2018 giving point-wise\nreply to the issues raised by the Appellant. He was also in possession of all the circulars issued by\nthe Public Authority from time to time. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the submissions of the\nCPIO / FAA and the letters issued to the Appellant explaining the factual position. It was informed\nthat they had not received any grievance petition from any of the affected employees of the Public\nAuthority as alleged by the Appellant.The Commission referred to the definition of informationu/s 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 which is\nreproduced below:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating\n       to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the\n       time being in force."Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract ofSection 2 (j)of the RTI Act,\n2005 which reads as under:"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is\n       held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497\n(CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required\n       to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or\n       'advice' in the definition of 'information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only refers to such\n       material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a\n       public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is\n       purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under theRTI Act."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative\nOfficer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had\nheld as under:6. "....Under the RTI Act"information" is defined underSection 2(f)which provides:Page 2 of 4"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating\n       to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the\n       time being in force."This definition shows that an applicant underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any\n       information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law.\n       Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices,\n       circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions,\n       advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before\n       him; or any information he could have obtained under law. UnderSection 6of the RTI Act,\n       an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public\n       authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the\n       petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have\n       had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as\n       to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."The Commission observed that the framework of theRTI Act, 2005restricts the jurisdiction of the\nCommission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture\ninto the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions\nincluding Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated\n17.02.2012Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906dated\n06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated\n29.01.2013 had held thatRTI Actwas not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter ofUnion of India v. Namit Sharmain REVIEW\nPETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and\nAnr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012\nhad held as under:"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which\n       is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does\n       not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than\n       their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is\n       not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the\n       Information Commissions."Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National\nBank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012dated 11.01.2013 held as under:"6. The proceedings under theRTI Actdo not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects.\n       The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the\n       employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the\n       appropriate forum. The purport of theRTI Actis to enable the appellants to effectively\n       pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the\n       response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be\n       drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under theRTI Actcannot\n       be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the\n       information furnished."Page 3 of 4Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated\n30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:6. The CIC has been constituted underSection 12of the Act and the powers of CIC are\n       delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the\n       confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other\n       controversy or disputes.7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside\n       the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the\n       CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii)\n       if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action\n       was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions underSection 19(8)were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers underSection 18of\n       the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various\n       provisions of the Act includingSection 25of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of\n       the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was\n       allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C)\n5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter ofShobha Vijender vs. Chief\nInformation Commissioner W.P. (C) No.8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further\nintervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the\nAppellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)\n                                                          (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अ भ मा णत स या पत        त)\n\n\n\n\n(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)\n(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26182598/[email protected]दनांक / Date: 14.01.2020Page 4 of 4