Central Information Commission
Dinesh Khemani vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 29 August, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2021/601167
Mr. Dinesh Khemani ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indian Oil Bhawan, BKC, Maharashtra
State Office, Plot No. 33, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra-East,
Mumbai-400051
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 29-09-2020 FA : 29-10-2020 SA : 20-01-2021
CPIO : 03-11-2020 FAO : 11-12-2020 Hearing : 22-08-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"Kindly provide me copy of application and the name and designation of the officer who had made an application before Chief controller of explosives under section 50 of the SMPV rules.
Also provide me copies of the application and name and designation of the officer who had made application for renewal under secon55 of the SMPV rules before explosives department from me to me ie from date of application 24th of July 2003 to 30th September 2020"
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 03-11-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 29-10-2020 and requested Page 1 of 3 that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 11-12- 2020 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 was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Anoop Kumar, Chief General Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 03.11.2020, point- wise reply/information, as per the documents available on records has been provided to the appellant on his RTI application.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent vide its letter dated 03.11.2020 has furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application. The respondent further contended that there is a dispute in dealership with the public authority, therefore, names of the officers cannot be provided and it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Commission is satisfied with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application of the appellant. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 22-08-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 2 of 3
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indian Oil Bhawan, BKC, Maharashtra State Office, Plot No. 33, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051
2. Mr. Dinesh Khemani Page 3 of 3