Central Information Commission
Santhakumar Natarajan vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 18 June, 2024
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/2023/617027
Shri Santhakumar Natarajan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Chennai
Date of Hearing : 13.06.2024
Date of Decision : 13.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.01.2023
PIO replied on : 09.01.2023
First Appeal filed on : 11.02.2023
First Appellate Order on : 09.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2023 seeking information on following 11 points:-
"I need the below information related to the inspection certificate issued on 19.09.2022 by Mr Rupam Debbarma, Manager Engineering (retail) Bpcl coimbatore territory.
1. Location and the time of the inspection of items inspected physically by Mr Rupam debbarma.
2. Name the officer accompanied along with him during inspection.
3. Provide me the copy of letter mr Rupam got permission for inspection at the site where the items are kept (The items are kept under locks and key, sealed with CCTV surveillance)
4. Provide me the information whether Mr Rupam broke the lock of premises and did the inspection.
5. Provide the photos taken during the inspection 19.09.2022.
Etc."Page 1 of 5
The CPIO, DGM, Business Planning (Retail), TN&P, BPCL, Chennai vide letter dated 09.01.2023 replied as under:-
"The matter is sub judice and hence the information cannot be provided"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.02.2023. The FAA, Head (Retail), South, BPCL vide order dated 09.03.2023 stated as under:-
"I have considered your Appeal and application for information submitted to DGM Business Planning (Retail) TN & P & CPIO (Retail).
I also considered the information provided by DGM Business Planning (Retail) TN & P & CPIO (Retail) in response to your RTI query SO(R)/TN &P /RTI/CBE/00031 dated.09.01.2023.
I would like to provide the following against your Appeal.
Q1. Mr. Rupam Debbarma, Manager Engineering (Retail) BPCL Coimbatore Territory, had visited the retail outlet premises on 19.09.2022 and prepared the report as per our records.
Q2. Q11. All the information's sought by you pertains to commercial confidence, the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest and hence denied as per clause 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act 2005.
I would like to mention that you have very long association with the company and you are well aware that there are other grievance redressal mechanisms available to resolve your complaints."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri N Krishnamani, CPIO and DGM Marketing (Retail TN & P, BPCL The Appellant stated that satisfactory information was not provided to him as information on points 2 to 11 was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. He referred to his written submission dated 05.06.2024 and stated that he was harassed by BPCL officers in every possible manner since the last 25 years as they demanded him to lease the premises against his repeated denials, stopped supply of petroleum products permanently and instructed him to not to use the facilities belonging to BPCL. Thereafter he removed all the facilities and placed them outside the license premises and handed over the land to the present land owner and informed the BPCL to remove the items belonging to them. The items were kept in locked premises with CCTV and security. In spite of several reminders the BPCL officials did not take the items and filed a damage suit in the civil court that the items were damaged during removal.Page 2 of 5
A written submission was also received from the CPIO, DGM, Marketing (Retail), TN&P, BPCL, Chennai vide letter dated 07.06.2024, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"BRIEF BACKGROUND • BPCL had a retail outlet in the name of M/s P Natarajan since Burmah Shell days (Earlier to 1976). This Retail Outlet was resited to new location - Dharapuram Byepass, in 1997.
• The Appellant, Santha Kumar N., who was landlord of the resited site and also a partner in the dealership, had signed lease deed for the new resited land for a period of 20 years from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2017. Considering the long association from Burmah Shell days, relying on their offer letter / signing of ATL/DLD, BPCL has invested & constructed the retail outlet, in good faith, believing that lease deed will be registered in favour of BPCL soon. In the dealership firm. M/s P. Natarajan. the three partners including the Appellant entered into a DPSL-A agreement in the year 1997, for the period 07.10.1997 to 06.10.2012 and sales were started from the new site. (DPSL 'A' -- Agreement signed between BPCL & dealers, where the company takes site on lease & develops the facilities at RO, while giving rent to the Landlord). However, the Appellant, (Landlord), refused to register the lease thereafter.
Even though an offer has been made to re-negotiate the lease terms in the year 2000 so as to offer higher rentals, they have decided not to register the lease deed in favour of BPCL.
• The DPSL 'A' as stated above was valid till 2012. The Appellant (dealer / Landlord) neither came forward to register lease for the site nor came forward to sign the fresh DPSL 'A' after the expiry in 2012. insisting to convert the dealership to DC. However, supplies were continuing to the dealership.
• The appellant has filed multiple RTIs & numerous Grievance petitions and CPIO/FAA have replied all on time. One such RTI which went upto the CIC hearing stage, CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/638795 dated 21.12.2023 was disposed off in favour of BPCL. (Copy of the CIC order is enclosed).
• We had given enough opportunities to the dealership to come forward and sign for renewal of the DPSL 'A' agreement, which is a mandatory document for any dealership.
• But not considering our requests, the appellant (Dealer) had unilaterally removed all our facilities from the retail outlet site, threatened to hand over the same to Municipality, barricaded the RO frontage and represented to PESO requesting the cancellation of the storage license of the retail outlet, which was against the corporations interest, that too from a dealer who was associated with the company for many years.Page 3 of 5
• In view of the abovesald reasons, the RO dealership, MIs P Natarajan, wherein the Appellant is also one of the partners, was terminated on 31.03.2023.
BPCL has filed an Original Suit OS 653 of 2022 in the Honourable District Court of Tiruppur, TN, presently transferred to and pending before III Additional District Judge Darapuram, claiming damages for the asset removal and closure of the retail outlet and the same is pending in the court. The unprofessional removal of the fittings by the appellant, have made such fittings unusable. All the equipment were damaged thereby causing huge loss. Even though the corporation had spent more than Rs. 70.58 lakhs and serviced regularly, replacing the worn out implements, the corporation has calculated the damages as per the book of accounts shown after depreciation. In fact, the damages caused is much more, but the corporation restricted its claim as per the book of accounts/assets, to the tune of Rs 17,31,138.00/- towards damage of property, assets, structures, facilities etc of the Corporation.
In the said OS, the appellant has filed a rejection petition challenging the claims made in the damage suit saying that damages are neither quantified under various heads nor the purchase invoices, confirmation of delivery of equipment details etc. produced.
The appellant has also filed a Writ Petition (WP) WP 20424 of 2023 in the Honourable High Court of Madras with a prayer to revoke the termination order and consider his request of Resitement. Even in the said WP, since the adjudication of the above OS is pending in the trial court, the appellant has pleaded for the mediation for settlement.
Considering all the facts stated above, and the fact that the appellant who is now a third party having terminated from the dealership effective 31.03.2023. we would like to reaffirm that the information sought under this RTI and before the respected CAC are information that can be used as exhibits or evidence during the trial of OS or the WP filed by the appellant. The clarification/rejoinder submitted by the appellant looks like a cross examination or argument stage during trial of the court cases mentioned above.
RTI REPLY (Elucidated) : In query no. 2 3 , 4 & 5, the Appellant wants to know how the BPCL Engineer Mr Rupam Debbarma got access to the items, which were removed by the Appellant & kept in his own custody. Sharing any information on these points would be misused/ manipulated by the appellant in his favour in court and can adversely affect/ weaken the Damage suit filed by BPCL in the court.
In query no. 6 & 10. the Appellant has sought information on the invoice / purchase bills of the MPDs (Pumps at the outlet) and Lighting fixtures. This information is not only of commercial confidence but also cannot be shared as this can adversely weaken the Damage suit filed in court by BPCL.
In query no. 7. 8. 9 & 11, the Appellant has sought information on the Tanks, pumps and all items mentioned in the list, which are part of the Page 4 of 5 Damage suit filed by BPCL in court. As all these items are presently in his custody, they are liable for tampering, hence sharing of any information on these items can adversely affect the Damage suit filed.
Hence, all the information sought against queries 2 to 11 are being denied due to its subjudice and commercial confidence nature."
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Shri N Krishnamani, CPIO and DGM Marketing (Retail) TN & P, BPCL, Chennai is however directed to forward a copy of his written submission with annexed documents to the Appellant within 1 week from the date of receipt of this order for his perusal and necessary action. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off 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 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)