Central Information Commission
Shri.F Jayakumar vs Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas on 13 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/001125
Appellant Shri F. Jayakumar
Public Authority IOCL, Chennai.
Date of hearing 13.06.2012
Date of decision 13.06.2012
Facts :-
Heard today dated 13.06.2012. Appellant present along with his wife Smt. Bhanumati. IOCL is represented by Shri S. Chandran, DGM(CPIO); Shri T.Vara Prasad Rao, Chief Manager and Shri Jaya Prakash, Law officer. The parties are heard and the records perused.
2. It is the appellant's say that his brother Devendran was allotted a petrol pump at Spurtank Road, Chennai, by IOCL way back in 1979. In due course, he entered into a partnership with his brother Devendran in 1982 with the consent of IOCL. The partnership, however, was an unregistered one. A civil litigation is going on between him and his brother. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 29.3.2010, he had sought a copy of the partnership deed entered into between him and his brother Devendran which, according to him, was executed by IOCL.
3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 29.4.2010 wherein the appellant was permitted access to the relevant records/information at Chennai Divisional Office on any working day. The appellant had filed first appeal against the decision of the CPIO which was disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.3.2011.
4. Dissatisfied with the orders of the CPIO and AA, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
5. During the hearing, the appellant submits that he had filed first appeal on 10.12.2010 and that it was not decided in statutory period of 30 days and was decided on 31.3.2011, i.e., after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days and when he had already filed the second appeal before this Commission and sent a copy thereof to the first Appellate Authority. Thus, the first Appellate Authority has been negligent in the discharge of his duties. His second and more important submission is that a partnership deed was entered into between him and his brother Devendran but the CPIO deliberately and intentionally has not provided a copy thereof to him. All that they have provided is a copy of the draft partnership deed which, according to him, is a fake document. He produces a copy of the letter dated 30.3.1982 sent by Shri P. Sudarshnam, Divisional Manager, which is extracted below :-
"He is assisted by his brother Shri F. J. Jayakumar ever since this Retail Outlet came into operation. He has now come out with a request to re-organise the retail outlet by inducting his brother who is assisting him in his day to day activities. He feels that by inducting his brother he will not only be encouraged and his morale will help him to achieve better results in the years to come.
Shri Jayakumar is an experienced mechanic and he is already helping his brother in the minor repair shop that has been provided by us in this reatial outlet.
Induction of shri Jayakurmar will not lead to benami or multiplicity or dealership. Shri Jayakumar has no connection with any other oil companies.
We enclose to this party's letter requesting for the re-organisation and also willingness letter from the incoming partner.
We are also forwarding a draft partnership deed.
We request you to kindly approve conversion of proprietorship firm into a partnership firm early."
6. It is, thus, his contention that a partnership deed, indeed, was executed between him and his brother but IOCL has been wrongfully denying a copy thereof to him. He further submits that even if it is assumed that no partnership deed was executed between him and his brother, then the IOCL should have informed him about it. On the other hand, it is the submission of the officers of the IOCL that all that they have in their records, is a copy of the draft partnership deed which has already been supplied to the appellant. On a query from the Commission, they submit that the appellant and his brother Devendran were required to execute the partnership deed and to supply a copy thereof to the IOCL along with the copy of the indemnity letter but this was not done. In other words, their contention is that they do not have a copy of the partnership deed in their records and, therefore, the question of supplying it to the appellant does not arise.
7. The appellant is not satisfied with the response of the IOCL. It is his strong conviction and belief that a partnership deed was executed between him and his brother and a copy thereof must be available with the IOCL.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed :-
(a) The appellant or his representative may be given inspection of the entire records, including note files and current files as available with them, relating to the petrol pump in-question and permitted to take extracts there-from, free of cost. This will be done in 05 weeks time.
(b) Shri S. Chandran, DGM(CPIO) is hereby directed to file a detailed affidavit regarding the availability/non-availability of partnership deed in the official records and the procedure involved therein. The Affidavit may be filed in 05 weeks time. A copy thereof may be sent to the appellant.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
( K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The CPIO, IOCL, Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indian Oil Bhawan, 139-Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.
2. Shri F. Jayakumar, No. 115 'Q' Block, 39th Street, Agathiar Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai-600049.