Central Information Commission
Natarajan vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 17 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2020/672085
Mr. Natarajan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Tamil Nadu State Office, Marketing
Division, Southern Region, Indian
Oil Bhawan, 139, MG Road,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600034
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 27-01-2020 FA : 28-02-2020 SA : 31-05-2020
CPIO : 24-02-2020 FAO : 07-05-2020 Hearing : 14-12-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
1. Please furnish Lakshmi Service Station at Kooteripattu managed by Dealer Natarajan is Do Do(i,e Company Owned Dealer Operated Outlet) or Do Do (Dealer Owned Dealer Operated Outlet)
2. Please furnish attested copy of dealership agreement executed between IOCL and the dealer Mr. Natarajan from 1989 to till date
3. Please furnish, policy related to DoDo. Even though there is a valid lease agreement for 10 years, and the Do Do dealership is terminated, after taking the underground tanks, delivery pumps, whether site will be handed over to the land owner?
4. In Page no.12 of dealership agreement executed between IOCL and Lakshmi Service Station, it's mentioned, all disputes related to dealership agreement should be referred to IOCL's arbitrator. In my case, Arbitrator and High Court issued judgment in my favor Page 1 of 6 and asked me to submit retail outlet restoration requisition application to IOCL. But, IOCL didn't consider Arbitration judgment and denied my restoration application. In Supreme court judgment, at para-34, Honorable Supreme Court Judge mentioned, "Arbitration clause 69 (c) empowers the Arbitrator to pass order in the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator so also the Single Judge while upholding the award considered it proper to grant liberty to the respondent to file a representation to the IOC for reconsideration of his case for restoration of his dealership". But, IOCL overruled Arbitration Order and IOCL issued dealership termination 4 / 12 4 / 12 4 / 14 letter. Please furnish, the reasons for denying my restoration application, which is contrary to the dealership agreement
5. Arbitration order was never challenged by IOCL in High Court, High Court Division Bench and Supreme Court. IOCL termination letter is only challenged in Supreme Court, Given all the circumstances of clear Arbitration Verdict in my favour(which is as per the Dealership Agreement) , Please furnish, whether my outlet Lakshmi Service Station, qualify under retail outlet restoration policy circular No.: 264/03/2018 reference RO/6002 Dt 22/03/2018 and 264(A)-03/2019 Dt 08/03/2019.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24-02-2020 had denied the information sought at point no. 04 under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 and provided information at point nos. 01, 02, 03 and 05 of the RTI application. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 28-02-2020 on ground provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 07-05-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Athavan Rajendran, GM (Retail/ Sales)/ APIO, attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 27.01.2020. He further submitted that his dealership has been terminated by the respondent and that he has not signed any Company owned dealer operated (CODO) agreement with the IOCL.
Page 2 of 65. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide their letter dated 24.02.2020, they have furnished a point wise reply to the appellant. He further submitted that Dealership of M/s Lakshmi Service Station at Kooteripattu was terminated under Marketing Discipline Guidelines for Violation of Rules. The Retail Outlet was Dealer Owned Dealer Operated (DODO) till 13.03.2002 and from 14.03.2002 onwards it was operated as Company Owned Dealer Operated (CODO) RO. Consequent to termination of dealership of M/s Lakshmi Service station, the RO operated on Ad-Hoc dealership as a temporary COCO. However, fresh dealership agreement is not traceable in their records and in any case the Retail Outlet Dealership itself is terminated for violation of MDG guidelines.
6. The appellant objected the averments made by the respondent and submitted that the conversion of retail outlet from DODO to CODO never happened at all. So, the submission made by the respondent is false and stating that the fresh dealership agreement is not traceable is good enough to say that such agreement was never executed at all.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to M/s Lakshmi Service Station at Kooteripattu and issues related thereto. That the appellant has asked multiple queries regarding the conversion of his dealership agreement from DODO to CODO. The Commission further observes that with regards to query no. 01, 04 & 05 of the RTI application the information sought by the appellant are clarificatory in nature. Therefore, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."Page 3 of 6
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant.
The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' n the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Page 4 of 6Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. However the Commission directs the respondent to furnish the complete note-sheets along with the copy of order in the decision taken by the respondent in case of conversion/ termination of the dealership agreement of M/s Lakshmi Service Station from DODO to CODO to the appellant.
9. With regards to point no. 02 of the RTI application, the Commission directs the respondent to re-examine their records to locate the agreement for the period (as specified in the RTI application) and furnish the requisite information as available on record with the public authority. If the said information is not available, then, the respondent is directed to give an affidavit to the appellant deposing that the information sought is not available in their records for the specified time period.
10. Further with regards to the point no. 03 of the RTI application the Commission directs the respondent to furnish the dealer selection policy which deals with the policy of DODO & CODO agreements to the appellant.
Page 5 of 611. The above directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 14-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Tamil Nadu State Office, Marketing Division,
Southern Region, Indian Oil Bhawan,
139, MG Road, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai-600034
2. Mr. Natarajan
Page 6 of 6