Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sonika Gupta vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 23 September, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2023/645487

Ms. Sonika Gupta                                                 ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                    VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
(BPCL)

Date of Hearing                          :   19.09.2024
Date of Decision                         :   19.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :           07.07.2023
PIO replied on                    :           03.08.2023
First Appeal filed on             :           19.07.2023
First Appellate Order on          :           04.09.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :           18.09.2023

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

A) "How many petrol pump dealerships have been opened/established/constituted under dealership agreements in north India since the enactment and enforcement of new Reconstitution Guidelines 2018?

B) How many dealerships/petrol pumps opened since 2018 are being run by someone else under the category of the cases covered by the TOTAL CHANGE OVER clauses of your corporation?

C) Whether the dealership agreements can be renewed automatically after their expiry? In how many cases have the dealership agreements been renewed by BPCL in absence of an application/representation from the dealership on the date of expiry of such agreement?

D) In how many cases of expiry of dealership agreements, has the BPCL stopped the supply of MS/HSD on the day of expiry of such agreements? E) Whether there is any provision to check the flash point of the MS/HSD before it is sent to the dealership from the depot? If yes cite/refer to the relevant provision. F) Whether the Marketing Discipline Guidelines are mandatory guidelines for testing the flash point of samples? What is the authenticity and legitimacy of the samples collected for the above purpose if the procedure laid down under the relevant guideline is not followed?

G) Whether the dealership agreement can be terminated on the count of a failed sample obtained for flashpoint if the relevant guidelines/procedure have been violated by the team of BPCL collecting such sample?

H) How many Reconstitutions in North India were done by BPCL after May 2018 under Clauses L5 to L8 of New Guidelines?

1) Has BPCL done any Reconstitution in north India after issuance of May 2018 Guidelines, where show cause notice was issued on Benami Operations prior to the release of guidelines?

J) Whether BPCL can condone old defaults of a dealership against payment of a certain penalty under the present rule position of the BPCL? If yes, how many such defaults stand condoned by the BPCL in north India."

The CPIO vide letter dated 03.08.2023 replied as under:-

"A-The information sought by you pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the Right To Information Act 2005. B-All the dealerships are to be managed/run by the DPSL signatory themselves. C-Part 1-You have not requested for any information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 and you cannot elicit opinion from CPIO. Therefore, no action can be taken by this Office on your query under the said Act.

Part 2-The information requested by you is confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005.

D-The information requested by you is confidential in nature and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005. E - As per the standard operating procedure, every month, monthly monitoring samples of all product from all tanks in a depot are sent to laboratory for quality checks and records are maintained. However, there is no provision to check flash point of MS/HSD before it's sent to the dealership from depot on daily basis. F&G-You have not requested for any information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 and you cannot elicit opinion from CPIO. Therefore, no action can be taken by this Office on your query under the said Act H & I- The information sought by you pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the Right To Information Act 2005 J-You have not requested for any information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 and you cannot elicit opinion from CPIO. Therefore, no action can be taken by this Office on your query under the said Act.

Reconstitution are carried out as per the reconstitution guidelines and dealership is operated as per the dealership agreement. Web link for reconstitution policy is given below for your reference Please, Web link for reconstitution policy is given below for your reference Please.

https://www.bharatpetroleum.in/images/files/reconstitution%20guidelines.pdf."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 04.09.2023 held as under:-

"You have informed that CPIO has not provided the information. In this regard, your appeal and CPIO reply was reviewed by me and I have observed that • You have sent two unsigned appeals which, however still, are being replied by the undersigned.

• CPIO-NR has provided the information quoting the relevant clauses of RTI Act 2005.

• The content of the two appeals makes me believe that you seem to have a grievance. If it is so, please meet the State Head, Punjab and J&K for redressal of the same. The address is given below:

Shri Sanjay Choubey.

State Head (Retail), Punjab, J& K, Plot No. 6A, Tel Bhawan, Sector-19-B, Madhaya Marg, P.B. 703, Chandigarh- 160019, Punjab."

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The Appellant has submitted a written submission reiterating his contentions aggrieved by the denial of information by the Respondent. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Represented by Shri Pankaj Jamwal-Advocate through video conference Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Gupta - GM, Marketing (Retail), BPCL was present through video conference during hearing.

Both parties reiterated their contentions as noted hereinabove.

Decision:

Examination of the records of the case reveals that some of the queries like query number A, B, C, D, H, I elicit numeric or generic information. PIO's response with respect to these queries are legally flawed and therefore set aside. In the light of the aforementioned facts and discussions, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent present for hearing, viz. Shri Sanjeev Gupta - GM, Marketing (Retail), BPCL to revisit each of the query and ensure that a revised point wise accurate reply furnishing reply containing numeric and generic data about dealership agreements in North India since the enactment and enforcement of new Reconstitution Guidelines 2018, is sent to the Appellant. The Respondent should exercise due caution and ensure that the information disclosed should not contain any data which is expressly barred from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and also ensure that provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act should also be applied to redact any third party information if deemed necessary while sending the revised reply as sought by the Appellant. The point wise revised reply should be sent by the Respondent within four weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission, within one week thereafter, failing which appropriate non compliance proceedings shall be initiated against the concerned official.

Considering the facts of the case, the Commission further recommends the Respondent-PIO to take necessary steps for suo motu disclosure of maximum information on their website about the dealership agreements in North India after the enactment and enforcement of new Reconstitution Guidelines 2018 in compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act in order to promote transparency and accountability in functioning of the public authority. The Respondent is duty bound Page 3 of 4 by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information on its website so that the public need minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. While proactively disclosing the information mentioned above, due caution should also be exercised by the Respondent to strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act and redact any information which falls under the purview of the Section 8, 9 or 10 of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.

Heeralal Samariya(हीरालालसामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)