केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MOPNG/C/2025/611595 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No CIC/MOPNG/A/2025/611599 Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee ….निकायतकताग /Complainant … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas Date of Hearing : 13.06.2025 Date of Decision : 23.06.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 19.01.2025 PIO replied on : 21.01.2025 First Appeal filed on : 04.02.2025 First Appellate Order on : 04.03.2025 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 10.03.2025 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 19.01.2025 PIO replied on : 21.01.2025 First Appeal filed on : 29.01.2025 First Appellate Order on : 04.03.2025 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.03.2025 Information sought and background of the case:

(1)CIC/MOPNG/C/2025/611595 (2)CIC/MOPNG/A/2025/611599 The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2025 seeking information on following points:-

“Designated CPIO and Authorized Representative of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is requested to please provide a certified copy of OM No. HRD

2022 issued by the CPSE under its aegis namely, HPCL………….”

The CPIO, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi vide letter dated

21.01.2025 replied as under:-

“2. It is informed that the requisite information may be lying with CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). Hence, the RTI application is being transferred to CPIO, HPCL under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 for providing the requisite information to the applicant directly.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2025. The FAA vide order dated 04.03.2025 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Anuj Kumar Dahiya CIC/MOPNG/C/2025/611595 A written submission dated 29/05/2025 has been received from the Appellant and duly taken on record.

A detailed and self -explanatory written submission dated 04.06.2025 has been received from CPIO reiterating that the information available on record and as permissible under the RTI Act having been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent has also submitted the following facts for consideration before the Commission:

1. The CPIO submitted that the Complainant was requesting for the certified copy of the documents. However, it was revealed by the Complainant himself that he is already in the possession of the documents as sought under RTI.

2. The CPIO submitted that it is further submitted that the information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been defined as any material in any form held by a public authority... Thus, it is to be noted that when an information is admittedly available with the RTI Applicant, it cannot be said to be held by a public authority. Further, it is to be noted that the RTI Applicant has filed 235 RTI Applications, 147 First Appeals, and if precedent of such a nature is allowed where an RTI Applicant is allowed to seek true copy of the documents that is already in his possession, considering the nature of the RTI Applicant, he would seek true copy of each and every letter ever issued to him. Therefore, at this juncture, it becomes imperative for your Hon'ble Authority to decide, whether an RTI Applicant can seek true copy of a document under RTI, which is not exclusively held by the CPIO and the RTI applicant is already in possession of the document. In the event such requests are permitted, RTI applicant like the present appellant would have opportunity to further misuse the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 thereby seeking Certified Copy under RTI Act of each a