Central Information Commission
Mrs. Sangeeta Jaiswal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 18 September, 2008
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.3298/IC(A)/2008
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2008/00367
Dated, the 18th September, 2008
Name of the Appellant: Mrs. Sangeeta Jaiswal
Name of the Public Authority: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
i
Facts:
1. The complainant was heard on 18/9/2008.
2. The complainant has grievances relating to allotment of retail outlet at Karari, Distt Kaushambi. She stated that her application for allotment of petrol pump was rejected on the following grounds:
"The plot of land offered by you at the time of application does not meet the IRC norms for putting up a retail outlet. As per the norms the plot on which RO is to be put should be at a minimum of 100 metres from a junction of two roads".
3. In this backdrop, she sought to know the following:
"Whether the retail outlets of BPCL mentioned below, or meeting IRC (Indian Road Congress0 norms. Kindly clarify how these ROs are meeting IRC norms, as plots on which these ROs situated are at the distance less than 100 meters from the junction of two roads."
4. She has also identified eleven retail outlets, which do not meet the IRC norms of a minimum 100 meters from the junction of two roads.
5. During the hearing, she stated that she has conducted a survey and found that the eleven identified retail outlets do not meet the norms of IRC. Yet, they i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1 have been approved by the respondent whereas her application has been rejected.
6. In response to her application dated 29/2/2008, the CPIO replied on July 22, 2008 as under:
"In this connection you may approach Highway Department (PWD) which is another Public Authority and obtain the information from them directly."
7. The complainant alleged that the CPIO has replied after a lapse of over three and a half months and that he has misled her by saying that the custodian of information is PWD. She stated that the respondent is required to ensure the adherence to IRC norms on the basis of which the application for retail outlets is accepted. She, therefore, pleaded for providing the relevant inspection report on the basis of which retail outlets, as identified in her application, have been approved and to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO for providing misleading information and that after a delay of over three and a half months.
8. She also alleged that she submitted her first appeal vide her letter dated 15/4/2008. But the Appellate Authority of the respondent has not taken due cognizance of her request for information.
Decision:
9. In view of what the complainant has stated, and supported by the documents submitted to the Commission, the CPIO is held responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the Act. He has not only misled the complainant about the custodian of information sought for by her, but also replied after a lapse of three and a half months. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to show cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/-, should not be imposed on him, u/s 20(1) of the Act. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 20th October 2008 at 11.30 a.m., failing which penalty would be imposed on him. He should also furnish the information asked for mainly the compliance of IRC norms in respect of all the eleven retail outlets identified by the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has already submitted a survey report from which it is amply clear that the retail outlets in question are situated at a distance less than 100 meters from the junction of two roads.
11. The Chairman, BPCL or his nominee should also explain as to why a suitable compensation of Rs.10,000/- should not be awarded to the petitioner for all kinds of losses and detriments suffered by her in seeking information regarding the compliance of IRC norms by the respondent. He or his nominee 2 should also appear for a personal hearing on the date and time indicated above. The complainant or her representative may also be present.
12. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Mrs. Sangeeta Jaiswal, 34/2, 10 Campus, Awadhpuri, Muir Road, Allahabad.
2. Sh. Vinod Giri, GM (Marketing Corporate) & CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai - 400 001.
3. The Appellate Authority, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai - 400 001.
4. The Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No.688, Mumbai - 400 001.
ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 3