Central Information Commission
Sikander Verma vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 18 August, 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/IOCLD/A/2024/119462
Shri Sikander Verma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025
Date of Decision : 13.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.09.2023
PIO replied on : 25.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 18.11.2023
First Appellate Order on : 14.12.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 25.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.09.2023 seeking information on the following points about a retail outlet (petrol pump) Location no- 3122 (Bhedaura) Azamgarh allotted as per notification of 2018:-
"A- Notarized Affidavit by the dealer as per Appendix-X-A/X-B (Standard Affidavit) as per notification issued in 2018.
B- Appendix III B (Advocate's letter) along with Appendix III A (consent for offer of land) as per notification of 2018.
C- Copy of land documents in support of ownership / lease rights. D- Sketch/Site map of the offered land with dimension."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.10.2023 replied as under:-
"R-1) Please be informed that you are third party. The documents sought by you have been submitted by the dealer to the corporation are personal & sensitive in nature and have been furnished in a Fiduciary Relationship with the corporation. Such documents are exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and CIC judgment ref. 30/IC/(A)/06 dated 20.04.2006 ref. CIC/LS/C/2012/000502/SH dated 05.06.2014. R-2) Please be informed that Appendix-IIIB is a 'Letter from Advocate with respect to status of land offered by the applicant, which is an opinion given by legal counsel to applicant and same has been furnished by applicant in fiduciary Page 1 of 3 relationship with corporation. Apart from this, please refer our answer to query no.
1. R-3) Please refer our answer to query no. 1.
R-4) Please refer our answer to query no. 1."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2023. The FAA, Executive Director, UPSO-I vide order dated 14.12.2023 replied as under:-
"I have perused the information sought by the appellant and the information provided by the PIO. I agree with the information provided by the PIO. The information sought by the appellant is available with the Corporation under fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
In view of the above, appeal is disposed. Postal order No 56F 297367 for 10 Rupees submitted along with the appeal is return herewith because for filing the appeal no fees is applicable."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A detailed written submission dated 08.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO, IOCL wherein apart from the foregoing facts, the Respondent has furnished a comprehensive background of the case including stating that the Appellant had not even applied for the retail outlet at this location. The Respondent has further corroborated the denial of information citing some decisions in the written submission, which has been duly taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Sachida Nand Raman - Sr. Manager(Retail Sales), UPSO-I, IOCL was present during hearing.
The Respondent stated that information sought by the Appellant refers to personal information of a third party, disclosure whereof was likely to unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the concerned third person. Hence, the Appellant was denied access to the information. The Appellant was not present during hearing and has not mentioned any larger public interest for seeking the information as mentioned in his RTI Application.
Decision:
Upon examining the records of the case and the averments of the parties, it is noted that the Respondent's reply is legally appropriate and hence it is upheld since information sought relates to third party, is personal in nature and is held by the Respondent in fiduciary capacity. The Appellant has not established any case that any larger public interest would be served by disclosure of the information, nor has he appeared to contest the case.Page 2 of 3
The Respondent is directed to send a complete set of the written submission dated 08.08.2025 with relevant annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. Before sending copy of the written submission, the Respondent must ensure that all the information which is expressly exempt from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and/or relating to any personal information of any third party must be redacted/severed from the submission invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act. The Respondent shall also submit a compliance report, in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. In the given circumstances, the reply sent by the Respondent is found legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)