Accommodating the date of personal hearing for saving government expenses

Background

The matter was fixed for hearing for a later date. However, the respondent who presented before the Commission in some other connection requested that they may be heard on the same day so that they do not have to travel all the way to Delhi again at a considerable Government cost. The Commission accepted their request and heard them on the same date. The appellant had sought information about the criteria laid down by BPCL for ‘refill’ of the LPG cylinders etc. along with the details regarding the booking and delivery of cylinder to a specific consumer for a particular period.

View of the CIC

On perusal of the reply of the PIO, the Commission found that the required information has been supplied. The PIO submitted that the information sought was about the third party and the BPCL does not maintain this information. Besides, this information is protected under 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. The Commission dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the PIO.

Comments

The CIC has not taken a rigid stand and has been flexible to the requirements of the parties. This kind of approach is in the interest of transparency and should be welcomed.

Citation: Shri Ravinder Kumar v. BPCL in file no. CIC/LS/A/2011/002765