Central Information Commission
Saurabh Agrawal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 31 October, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/655337-UM
Mr.Saurabh Agrawal
....शिकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Nodal Cpio, Rti Cell, State Head Retail (U.P.),
UPSCIDCO Building, TC/46-V, 5th Floor, VibhutiKhand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP-226010
.... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.10.2023
Date of Decision : 31.10.2023
Date of RTI application 03.10.2022
CPIO's response 10.10.2022
Date of the First Appeal 14.10.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 20.10.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission 14.10.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-
Kindly furnish under the RTI Act 2005 the complete and detailed information all together with the file noting, memo, circulars, records, orders, reports, emails, correspondences and other related documents regarding exact number of Tank Tanker plying under the transport category and exact Page 1 of 3 number of under contract tank tankers plying under the category of dealer vendor at BPCL Mathura Installation for transportation of MS and HSD.
The CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, vide letter dated 10.10.2022 furnished the information to the Complainant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal. FAA vide order dated 20.10.2022 upheld the reply of PIO.
Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Saurabh Agrawal attended the hearing Respondent: Mr.Vineet Chopra, DGM Marketing and Mr. Prakash Prate, DGM Coordinator, attended the hearing The Complainant stated that most of the RTI Applications are similar in nature therefore he will submit a common submission. He submitted that he had filed RTI Applications wherein he had sought information regarding the maintenance and service of EM locks. He said that he received replies from the respondent office wherein the CPIO had denied the information on grounds that the information sought is related to a third party information, confidential data of the office which cannot be revealed to general public and most of the questions are not clear to them. He said that he sought the information because the respondent authority discontinued his contract on the ground of disparity between him and other contractors. He submitted that improper and false replies were furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfil his purpose. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hide the information which led to corruption and violates the guidelines with regard to underground water extraction. In first instance the Complainant stated that he has been blacklisted by the respondent authority when he started to file RTI Applications. After that he stated that the blacklisting order has been set aside by the Hon'ble Allahabad High court and now the matter has been put up before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court for the Arbitration.
In response, Mr. Vineet Chopra, DGM Marketing, submitted that all the relevant and genuine information has already been furnished. He further submitted that the information sought constituted confidential information of their office and personal information of third party also, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Complainant, he said. Mr Prakash Parate, DGM, Coordination, submitted that all the RTI Applications have been responded within the stipulated time and in accordance with the provision of the RTI Act 2005. He informed the commission that they work as per the guidelines provided by the competent authority. He further informed to the commission Page 2 of 3 that the Complainant was in a habit of filling multiple as well as frivolous application on a similar issue and was never satisfied with their replies.
The Complainant countered the claim of the Respondent and stated that there is an undue delay in furnishing proper reply to his RTI applications which clearly shows the lackadaisical approach of the CPIO in implementing the RTI Act-2005. He strongly objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in the matter and argued that he does not agree that the information sought can be denied on such grounds as he has not sought the records of any the third party.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and observes that the instant matter is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to any unreasonable cause which the Commission is unable to conclude herein. Hence, no further intervention is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Complainant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाभित एवं सत्याभित प्रभत)
(R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उि-िजं ीयक)
011-26182598 / [email protected]
भदनाक
ं / Date: 31.10.2023
Page 3 of 3