Central Information Commission
Naresh Babu vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 8 September, 2025
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/2024/123437.
Shri. Naresh Babu. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
Date of Hearing : 03.09.2025
Date of Decision : 03.09.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.03.2024
PIO replied on : 11.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 04.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 24.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 25.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Details (Name, Father's Name, address etc) of operator(s) who run the petrol pump
2. Certified copies of application(s) submitted by operator(s) to run the petrol pump.
3. Certified copies of permission(s) obtained from district authority/Collector, based upon respective operator's application(s)considered to run the petrol pump.
4. Certified copies of approval(s)/permission(s) obtained from fire & Safety department (CCOE etc), based upon respective operator's application(s) consideredto run the petrol pump.
5. Certified copies of agreement(s) signed with operator(s)& M/s BPCL, to run the petrol pump.
6. Certified copies of LOI (letter of Intent) issued by M/s BPCL to respective operator to run the petrol pump.
7. Certified copy of request letter, if available/written by either partiesfor cancelling the first agreement dated 04.07.2014 before signing the second agreement between land lord and M/s BPCL dated 20.05.2015 and information regarding cancellation's reasonol earlier agreement.
8. Certified copies of ownership/transfer agreement(s) signed/executed between different operators & M/s BPCL.
Page 1
9. Information regarding, whether permission obtained from district authority and Fire & Safety department to a particular operator to run the M/s BPCI's petrol pump,same can be used/transferred to another operator too or not."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 11.04.2024 replied as under:-
"Query 1: Details (Name, Father's Name, Address etc) of operator(s) who run the Petrol Pump.
Reply: As per Dispensing Pump & Selling License (DPSL) agreement signatory of M/S Bhaavya Service Station. Petrol Pump at Mirzapur Nasrullapur, Behioi, Tehsil Chandausi. Rehini Islamnagar Rinait Sambhal ie Sri Chandra Gaurav Azad s/o Late Sri Ram Singh Azad.
Query 2- Certified copies of applications) submitted by operator to run the petrol pump.
Reply Please note the information requested by you is of commercial confidence & third party personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied under Section 8(1)
(d) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005 Query 3: Certified copies of permission(s) obtained from district authority/Collector, based upon respective operator's application(s) considered to run the Petrol Pump Reply Please note the information requester by you is of commercial confidence & third party personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) id) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
Query 4-Certified copies of approval(s)/permission(s) obtained from fire & safety department (CCOE etc), based Upon respective operator's application(s) considered to run the Petrol Pump.
Reply: Please note the information requested by you is of commercial confidence & third party personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied under Section 8/1)
(d) & (g) of the RTI Act 2005 Query 5: Certified copies of agreement (s) signed with operator(s) & M/S BPCL, to run the petrol Pump.
Reply Please note the DPCL. Agreement is a fiduciary document between Principal and Licensee, hence denied under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Query 6:- Certified copies of LOI (Letter of Intent) issued by M/S BPCL, to run the Petrol Pump.
Reply Please note the Letter of Intent (LOI) is a fiduciary document between Principal and Licensee, hence denied under Section 8(1) (c) of the IRTI Act 2005.
Query 7 Certified copy of request letter, if available/written by either parties for cancelling the first agreement dated 04.07.2014 before signing the second agreement between land lord and BPCL dated 20.05.2015 and information regarding cancellation's reason of earlier agreement. Reply. Please note the Lease Agreement is of commercial confidence and is a fiduciary document between Lessor and Lessee, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d)& (e) of the RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.05.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 24.05.2024 replied as under:-
"कृ पया आपकी आरटीआई अपील दिनांक 04/05/2024 जोदक हमें दिनांक 09/05/2024 को प्राप्त हुई एवं मूल आरटीआई दिनांक 27/03/2024 का संिर्ग ग्रहण करें ।
Page 2 हम आपकी अपील के संिर्ग में सूनचत करना चाहते हैं दक आरटीआई एक्ट 2005 के प्रावधानों के अंतगगत आपकी आरटीआई पर सीपीआईओ उत्तर प्रिेश के पत्र क्रमांक ल/बीपीसीएलडी/आर/पी/24/00266 दिनांक 11/04/2024 के िारा समुनचत उत्तर िे दिया गया है। इसके साथ ही अपील ननस्ताररत की जाती है।"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Mr. Sourav Mukherjee, DGM(Marketing)- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the CPIO. He averred that the information sought has been wrongly denied under section 8(1) (d) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent stated that as per their records the Appellant is not DPSL signatory of the retail outlet, neither is he a landlord of the retail outlet. He averred that information sought relates to personal information of third party and same is exempted under section 8(1) (d) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Written submission dated 25.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..It is kindly submitted that all the information requested by the RTI Applicant - Sh. Naresh Babu has already been provided to him by CPIO vide reply dated 11.04.2024 and there is no query for which information has not been provided except copy of application for Dealership Selection, NOC(s) which are commercial confidential & third party personal information that do not satisfy the lager public interest, hence denied under Section 8(1) (d) (e) & (j), copy of Letter of Intent (LOI) & DPSL Agreement being a fiduciary document between Principal and Licensee cannot be provided as the same is exempt from disclosure U/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005. However, PESO License of a Retail Outlet dealership is displayed in the Retail Outlet only.
Mr. Naresh Babu, the RTI Applicant in this case is a Third Party. He is not DPSL signatory of the Retail Outlet, neither is he a Landlord of the Retail Outlet.
Further, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited filed a writ petition no. 81/2024 dated 03-02-2024, at Civil Court, Chandausi Junior Division, District- Sambhal regarding the same Retail Outlet which has next Hearing date on 17/10/2025. (Annex-6) RTI Applicant Mr. Naresh Babu is one of the respondents in the same, since he entered into an illegal agreement with the existing Landlord almost 7 years after commissioning of the Retail Outlet, without any information and prior approval from BPCL. BPCL. has filed the court case against the current Landlords and Mr. Naresh Babu for cancelling the lease deed entered between the existing Landlords and Mr. Naresh Babu dated Page 3 16.02.2022, since the land is given on lease to BPCL by the landlords from 01-05-2015 till 31-03-2045. Mr. Naresh Babu is well aware of the case. Therefore, the matter is sub judice and disclosure of information and documents regarding the same will impede the proceedings of the court..."
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनर्प्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)