Central Information Commission
Mahesh Narayan Trivedi vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 24 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/HPCLD/A/2020/673206
Mr. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Retail Regional Office,
50, Sahel Nagar, New Polo Ground,
Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 29-09-2018 FA : 31-10-2018 SA : 09-06-2020
CPIO : 29-10-2018 FAO : 06-12-2018 Hearing: 20-12-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Udaipur, Rajasthan.The appellant seeking information on six points including inter-aliais as under:-
1. The Information needed is in the form of certified documents/Clarification documents.
2. The information sought pertains to office of CPIO HPCL Udaipur retail RO 50 Saheli Nagar, New Polo ground (Udaipur) 313001.
3. The required information is for the period from the enactment of office of CPIO HPCL Udaipur retail RO 50 Saheli Nagar, New Polo ground (Udaipur) 313001. etc. Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 29-10-2018 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 31-10-2018 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 06-12-2018 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing as he has already informed the registry to decide the case on merits. The respondent, Shri Vineet Kumar, CPIO/ DGM (Retail) attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 13.12.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 29.10.2018, they have informed the appellant that "as per section 11 (1) of RTI Act, no public interest will be served but the appellants personal interest and disclosure would compromise the ability of the public authority to find the best way to legally defend the interest of the company and company officers, who is threatened by legal action of the appellant. The right of the company not to share the evidence and the records it holds in that regard with the very person threatening to drag it to the law of Court. The larger implication of such right being conferred on litigants to access all information held by company relating to litigation they themselves start. Such disclosure would compromise the public authority's ability to carry out its mandate and to attend with the best of its ability to the responsibilities. It is entrusted to discharge. Also under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, there are compelling grounds for respondents to hold confidential information relating to how they wished to defend their legal position in litigation or a threatened litigation."
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought copy of DM-
Page 2 of 4NOC issued by DM-Udaipur in the name of HPCL for its Plot No. A & Plot No. B. That the respondent has informed that the appellant and his relative Shri Avinash Chandra Trivedi have been filing a large number of RTI Applications related to same matter for de-leasing/ eviction of land of M/s Vijay Motors, Udaipur, during the past many years along with an equally large number of litigations and appeals with the HPCL. That NOC for the subject plot has been applied by the predecessor companies i.e. Estwhile Standard Vacuum Oil Company and ESSO Standard Eastern Inc. to protect their commercial interest. That the ESSO Act, 1974 was passed by Parliament of India to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the rights, title and interest of ESSO Eastern Inc. As per the Act, the rights, titles and interest of ESSO in relation to its undertakings in India, shall stand transferred to and shall vest in the Central Government later transferred to HPCL after its formation in 1974. Therefore, such information relates to the commercial interest of the predecessor companies, hence does not envisage any right of the land owner on its title and otherwise also it's a third party information. That the NOC is given to the HPCL for its commercial operation, therefore the copy of the said NOC cannot be shared with the appellant being exempted under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. In the context of non disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was held as under:
14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to Page 3 of 4 be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
8. In view of the above, the Commission observes that the landlords have multiple litigation with the public authority which is their grievance. Therefore the same should be settled by an appropriate forum and not under the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 20-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Retail Regional Office, 50, Sahel Nagar,
New Polo Ground, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313001
2. Mr.Mahesh Narayan Trivedi
Page 4 of 4