Central Information Commission
G. L. N. Prasad vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 10 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/2024/120275.
Shri. G. L. N. Prasad. ... 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 : 08.04.2024
PIO replied on : 03.05.2024
First Appeal filed on : 06.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 05.06.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Please provide records regarding changes in lease, changes in licensee names as per clause 12 of the License granted since 1980 until the license's cancellation, either from Civil Supplies dept records or procuring from the Dealer and Petroleum Company as a controlling authority that issued the license on false declarations/false documents by applicant Markandeya Sastry."
The CPIO, Dy. General Manager vide letter dated 03.05.2024 replied as under:-
"In compliance of the above CIC orders dated 30.10.2023 and 03.01.2024, no information can be provided to you for your RTI application"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2024. The FAA, Head (Retail) South vide order dated 05.06.2024 replied as under:-
"I write with reference to your RTI appeal dated 06-05-2024, I have considered your original RTI application submitted to SPIO, Civil Supplies Dept which was forwarded to CPIO, BPCL Andra Pradesh & Telangana. I find that CPIO, BPCL, Andra Pradesh & Telangana's reply vide dated 03-05- 2024 to your RTI application is in order.
Page 1 With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Gunna Rao, DGM(Retail) Marketing/CPIO- participated in the hearing through video-conference.
Written submission dated 16.08.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
The Respondent stated that the Appellant have been sending RTI applications in his name and in the name of others for the last 18 years through 250 odd RTIs. He stated that there are 3 CIC decisions refraining Appellant from filing RTIs in this matter and some of the appeals were dismissed. He added that ,irrespective of orders of this Commission, the Appellant keep on sending RTIs and wasting the time and resources of the Corporation. Furthermore, the subject land is not with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited since 2015 and BPCL do not have any rights on the subject retail outlet land. He averred that relevant documents already been inspected by the Appellant. Written submission dated 26.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..We wish to appraise that "the Judgment in AS 66/2010 in the High Court of undivided Andhra Pradesh against OS 103/2008 was dismissed with costs. Attention is drawn of the Hon'ble Commission to para 16.9 in page no: 44 of the judgment which clearly states that Mrs. P. Sugunavati is a step mother and not a class-1 heir of Late P.V.Ramasastry who is original dealer of M/s. P.V. Krisnaiah & Co. This also puts aside false/misleading claims that P. V. Ramasastry is Mrs. P. Sugunavati's only son and related to Appellant Mr. G.L.N. Prasad". Hence, Mr. G.L.N. Prasad has no right to seek any information pertaining to this Retail Outlet. (Copy of Judgement enclosed as Annexure-4). We also wish to appraise that "the Judgement in Original Suit No. 103 OF 2008 was dismissed with costs. Attention is drawn of the Hon'ble Commission to para 19 in page no: 8, Plaintiff Smt P. Sugunavathi was not sure enough as to, whether to contend that it is a joint nucleus as a partnership or property thrown into common hotch pot. The plaintiff wanted to seek for partition of the properties as if plaintiff is in joint and constructive possession of the property and generously paid court fee of Rs.500/-under Sub Sec.2 of Sec.34 of APCF and (in fact the maximum court fee is payable is only Rs.200/-. When the plaintiff is not in joint constructive possession of the property near particularly when defendant 1 to 10 are strangers, the plaintiff has to file the suit for declaration and should pay advelorium court fee U/Sec.34(1) of the Act. Seek for mere partition when P.Venkata Rama Sastry said to have sold the property long long back and the properties are in the hands of third parties, without providing the alleged Page 2 fraud and seeking for declaration plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit, Now it is in evident that a high decree of speculative suit fi filed taking advantage of Sec.2 Sub Sec.34 of APCF and SV Act and once the property is not in the hands of members of joint family, for nearly 2% decades, the present relief cannot be given by any stretch to imagination. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed with costs. (Copy of Judgement enclosed as Annexure-5).
In this connection, we would like to inform Honourable Commission that Appellant have been sending RTI applications on his name and others for the last 18 years through 250 odd RTIs. There were 3 CIC decisions refraining Appellant to put RTIs in this matter till the time he complies CIC orders and some of the appeals were dismissed. Irrespective of that Appellant keep on sending RTis and wasting the time and resources of the Corporation. The subject land is not with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited since 2015 and we have provided all the available information to Mrs P. Sugunavati and others. We hereby appraise CIC through the gist of the case as per the records available with BPCL as below:
The Retail Outlet land admeasuring 9700 Sq. Feet in S.No. 1053 which was taken on lease for 20 years from 01.05.1960 from Sri P.V. Rama Sastry vide agreement No. 4663 dated 22.09.1960 with renewal option for another 20 years from 01.05.1980. An additional land admeasuring 13085 Sq. Feet in Sy. No. 1053 was taken on lese from Sri P.V. Sastry for 17 years from 01.05.1963 vide agreement No. 4466 dated 22.08.1963 with renewal option for another 20 years from 01.05.1980.
Mr. V. V. Sastry (Father in law of Mr. P.V. Rama Sastry) filed a suit for Specific Performance 0.5.54/1968 which was ordered in favour of Mr. V.V. Sastry. The sale deed was executed in favour of Mr. V. V. Sastry through the process of Court Represented by Mr. G.J. Stephen, Additional Sub Judge, Guntur vide Registered Deed of Transfer Document No. 3208/1971 dated 12.07.1971. On 01.11.2012 the Legal Heirs of Late V.V. Sastry sold the RO Site to the following third parties by Registered sale documents Nos. 12730, 12728 and 12707 dated 01.11.2012.
1. Yerramsetty Ramulu,
2. Yerramsetty Hanumantha Rao,
3. Yerramsetty Anu Radha,
4. Yerramsetty Babi Sailaja In 2013, an eviction suit was filed by the new landlords at the Hon'ble High Court of AP, Hyderabad as they were not interested in leasing the property to BPCL.
The Retail outlet was not running, lease expired and DM NOC was cancelled. The dealership was terminated and we have surrendered this land to the new landlords on 27.05.2015. Hence, BPCL do not have any rights on this Retail Outlet land.
1. On the basis of the above, it is humbly submitted that BPCL has expended a considerable amount of time and energy of its resources to meet the requirements of the appellant and others. The Appellant and others are misusing the provisions of an Act Page 3 which was enacted in order to empower the citizens of the Country; however the conduct of the Appellant and others show a total misuse of the said act resulting in harassment to this Public Sector Corporation.
2. It is further submitted that, Appellant was given PERSONAL hearings on 04.10.2013 & 24.11.2015 at BPCL office. Appellant himself was the representative and was provided with all the available details/information. The certified copies of all the documents inspected and selected by the Appellant Mr. G.L.N Prasad were provided.
It is submitted that it is quite shocking and surprising that Appellant & his representatives have been making a mockery of RTI act, as soon after getting the required information/documents or after any hearing, than Appellant immediately/instantly, comes back repeatedly with the same set of questions again and again on the same subject based on our replies by way of elaboration, explanations, with assumptions, presumptions, solely with a view to harass the officials and public authority and waste public money. This has been going on for the past 18 years.
(a) BPCL does not have any documents nor any information to share further on the subject and BPCL. has informed Appellant accordingly in all previous letters several times in the past.
Despite informing in all our letters that BPCL does not have any documents or information, Appellant keeps on sending unending RTI applications without a purpose, only to harass the officials of the Corporation wasting valuable productive official man hours' time and public money, utterly misusing the provisions of the RTI act to settle Appellant's personal vengeance as per his whims and fancies, using RTI act and BPCL as tools.
(b) Also, Appellant keeps on sending several RTI applications/notices under S80, along with Mrs. G.Raja Rajeshwari with multiple queries which are repetitive, based on assumptions / presumptions, employ pressure tactics, misleading, contradictory, sometimes argumentative, hypothetical, investigative, probing, questioning, eliciting opinion, intimidative, threatening, and many times provocative like: BPC has committed fraud, BPCL officials have committed fraud, 'Your CPIO does not know his job', 'he tells cock and bull stories' 'copy and paste information officer', 'never applied his mind", "corrupt/criminals/crooks', 'FAA is a stooge of APCIO', 'Some group of crooks in BPCL have prepared a template for replies' which are un called for, instead of confining to seeking information. Appellant also make cryptic remarks and mock at the replies from CPIO/FAA etc. Appellant also levels accusations against our FAA and Transparency officer in her letters. The said allegations apart from being devoid of merit are totally unwarranted.
It is further submitted that Appellant resorts to accusations, intimidation, threats, use foul/abusive/offensive language/ words, generates complaints, employs pressure tactics. This Hon'ble commissions attention is drawn to Appellant's letter Page 4 dated 13.03.2020, Ref. last two lines of page-1, point no:4 which reads as 'But, for the reasons best known to the corrupt /criminals/crooks so far BPCL has never stated facts in courts as lessee' and 5 b) of page:2, ..... They have formed a team and some crooks cooked up and fabricated uniform summary.... Further Appellant have availed all remedies under the RTI Act, issued 80 c notices, and filed several appeals to Appellate Authority besides several appeals to CIC.
It is clearly seen from the above that by any stretch of imagination, Appellant have nothing to do with the Retail Outlet land at Guntur and yet litigating Appellant's dispute in the name and guise of public interest without an end in sight. We once again submit that BPCL do not have any relation/control on the Retail Outlet land and all available documents submitted to Appellant. It is prayed that the second appeal may be dismissed with strictures and cost. Also request strict implementation of the earlier CIC orders and not to entertain any further Appeals in the subject matter..."
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that an appropriate response has been furnished by concerned PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. It is pertinent to mention that the Commission in previous orders dated 18.08.2023 in Case No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/127233/C and 30.10.2024 in Case No. CIC/BPCLD/C/2022/125185 has noticed the misuse of RTI Act by the Appellant and accordingly, the Appellant was advised to refrain from filing repetitive RTI Applications on similar subject matter. 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 (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)