Bar and Bench: Mumbai: Saturday,
14 September 2024.
The case involved an RTI application filed by an individual with Hindustan Petroleum, seeking information on who was responsible for an LPG cylinder explosion that caused significant loss of life in Worli.
The Bombay High Court
recently ruled that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has limited powers
under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and cannot assume an adjudicatory role
[Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commission and
Anr.].
The case before the Court concerned an RTI application filed by an individual with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), seeking information on who was responsible for an LPG cylinder explosion that caused significant loss of life in Worli, Maharashtra.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh found that the CIC had overstepped its authority by directing HPCL to conduct an inquiry into the LPG cylinder explosion.
"Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Commission has exceeded the powers which is vested under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act. The Commission has assumed itself an adjudicatory role and directed the Petitioner to conduct an inquiry into the explosion of the LPG cylinder to determine the responsibility," noted the Court.
The writ petition before the Court challenged an order passed by the CIC on October 30, 2023 directing HPCL to inquire and fix responsibility in the LPG explosion case.
The CIC directive came on an RTI application which sought answers to whether the gas company or distributor was liable for the unauthorized use of the cylinder which led to the explosion.
The HPCL had responded to this application by stating that it was not responsible for unauthorized cylinders. Dissatisfied with this response, the RTI applicant filed an appeal before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). However, the CPIO deemed that the RTI plea was had been satisfactorily resolved.
The matter was then escalated to the CIC, which issued a directive for HPCL to re-examine the application and conduct an inquiry into the incident.
This CIC order was challenged before the High Court by HPCL. HPCL contended that the CIC’s order involved adjudicatory actions beyond its powers under the RTI Act.
HPCL maintained that the information sought by the RTI applicant did not fall within the RTI Act's definition of information under Section 2(F) and Section 2(J).
It added that the CIC's directions to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility were beyond its powers, as the RTI Act's Section 19(8) only grants the Commission the authority to enforce compliance with the RTI provisions, not to adjudicate or investigate.
To support these arguments, HPCL cited the Delhi High Court's decision in The Registrar Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Likesh K. Batra and the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Namit Sharma.
The RTI applicant's counsel countered that the RTI application was pertinent due to ongoing criminal proceedings related to the explosion. He maintained that transparency and accountability in handling the gas distribution issue were crucial and that the CIC's direction was justified to ensure a thorough examination of the incident.
The Court found that the CIC had indeed exceeded its statutory powers by issuing directions that involved adjudication and conducting an inquiry, which fell outside its mandate under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act.
The Court emphasized that the RTI Act does not empower the CIC to determine responsibility for incidents or conduct investigations, as such matters fall under the jurisdiction of investigative authorities. Consequently, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the CIC's order dated October 30, 2023, ruling in favor of HPCL.
[Read Order]
The case involved an RTI application filed by an individual with Hindustan Petroleum, seeking information on who was responsible for an LPG cylinder explosion that caused significant loss of life in Worli.
The case before the Court concerned an RTI application filed by an individual with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), seeking information on who was responsible for an LPG cylinder explosion that caused significant loss of life in Worli, Maharashtra.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh found that the CIC had overstepped its authority by directing HPCL to conduct an inquiry into the LPG cylinder explosion.
"Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Commission has exceeded the powers which is vested under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act. The Commission has assumed itself an adjudicatory role and directed the Petitioner to conduct an inquiry into the explosion of the LPG cylinder to determine the responsibility," noted the Court.
The writ petition before the Court challenged an order passed by the CIC on October 30, 2023 directing HPCL to inquire and fix responsibility in the LPG explosion case.
The CIC directive came on an RTI application which sought answers to whether the gas company or distributor was liable for the unauthorized use of the cylinder which led to the explosion.
The HPCL had responded to this application by stating that it was not responsible for unauthorized cylinders. Dissatisfied with this response, the RTI applicant filed an appeal before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). However, the CPIO deemed that the RTI plea was had been satisfactorily resolved.
The matter was then escalated to the CIC, which issued a directive for HPCL to re-examine the application and conduct an inquiry into the incident.
This CIC order was challenged before the High Court by HPCL. HPCL contended that the CIC’s order involved adjudicatory actions beyond its powers under the RTI Act.
HPCL maintained that the information sought by the RTI applicant did not fall within the RTI Act's definition of information under Section 2(F) and Section 2(J).
It added that the CIC's directions to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility were beyond its powers, as the RTI Act's Section 19(8) only grants the Commission the authority to enforce compliance with the RTI provisions, not to adjudicate or investigate.
To support these arguments, HPCL cited the Delhi High Court's decision in The Registrar Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Likesh K. Batra and the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Namit Sharma.
The RTI applicant's counsel countered that the RTI application was pertinent due to ongoing criminal proceedings related to the explosion. He maintained that transparency and accountability in handling the gas distribution issue were crucial and that the CIC's direction was justified to ensure a thorough examination of the incident.
The Court found that the CIC had indeed exceeded its statutory powers by issuing directions that involved adjudication and conducting an inquiry, which fell outside its mandate under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act.
The Court emphasized that the RTI Act does not empower the CIC to determine responsibility for incidents or conduct investigations, as such matters fall under the jurisdiction of investigative authorities. Consequently, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the CIC's order dated October 30, 2023, ruling in favor of HPCL.
[Read Order]
.JPG)
.JPG)
