Central Information Commission
Mrram Kumar Rana vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 22 May, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000821
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 22nd May 2015
Date of decision : 22nd May 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ram Kumar Rana, Advocate,
S/o.Chamber No. 572, Lawyers Chamber
Complex, District Court Karnal, Karnal,
Haryana
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division, State Office Delhi & Haryana, World Trade Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi 110001 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Karnal. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri D. S. Rao, Senior Manager was present in person.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 19.10.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 11.4.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 17.4.2014.
CIC/SH/A/2014/000821
2. The Appellant stated that he had sought copies of certain documents submitted by a candidate for a dealership. He further submitted that he was himself also a candidate for the same dealership. According to him, the documents required are: the affidavits of proposed customers submitted by the candidate in question, details of the land proposed for the dealership and experience certificates submitted by the said candidate. He stated that he has not sought any private information and it should be provided to him.
3. The Respondents stated that the dealership in question has still not been awarded because of disputes. They further submitted that in the selection process, the Appellant was placed at number 1, but was not awarded the dealership because of some complaints. The candidate, about whom information has been sought by the Appellant, was placed at number 2 and was issued a letter of intent, which was subsequently cancelled, also because of some complaints and now the matter concerning the candidate, placed at number 3 in the selection process, is being processed. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (e) and
(j) of the RTI Act.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We have been in favour of providing the information concerning the documents submitted by candidates for petrol / gas dealerships, with the exception of information of a personal nature, in cases in which the selection process has been completed. In the instant case, the selection process has still not been completed because of complaints and counter complaints. Therefore, we would refrain from ordering disclosure of any information at this stage.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
CIC/SH/A/2014/000821
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/000821