Central Information Commission
Mrramesh Lal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 18 May, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000747
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000748
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 18th May 2015
Date of decision : 18th May 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ramesh Lal,
S/o Shri Sohan Lal, R/o: Flat No 504,
Doordarshan Welfare Organisation, Plot
No8, Sector 45, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, BPCL PANIPAT INSTALLATION, NEAR PANIPAT REFINERY, BAHOLI, PANIPAT, HARYANA 132140 The Appellant was not present. Instead Advocate Payal Juneja was present in person with a written authorization from the Appellant to represent him.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri V. N. Tandon, State Coordinator and CPIO, Chandigarh.
2. Shri Chandan Chauhan, Deputy Manager.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
CIC/SH/A/2014/000747
These files contain appeals regarding two RTI applications dated 17.12.2012 filed by the Appellant. He approached the CIC in second appeal in both the cases, stating that he had not heard either from the CPIO or the FAA.
2. In the RTI application dated 17.12.2012 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000747), the Appellant sought information on eleven points regarding a retail outlet named "Sapru Car Care" and related issues. In the RTI application dated 17.12.2012 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000748), he wanted to know the action taken by the Respondents on his letters dated 25.8.2006 and 21.4.2006. Advocate Payal Juneja submitted that BPCL was allotted land by HUDA for opening retail outlets in Gurgaon and the Appellant was granted a Letter of Intent (LoI) for opening a retail outlet in Sector 44, Gurgaon on Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) basis. Advocate Juneja further submitted that one more outlet was granted on COCO basis in the name of "Sapru Car Care" in Sector 47, Gurgaon and was later on allowed to be converted to a "Company owned dealer operated" outlet. However, the request of the Appellant to convert his outlet to "company owned dealer operated" was not acceded to by the Respondents. The information sought by the Appellant was in the above context as the Respondents discriminated between the CIC/SH/A/2014/000747 Appellant and the owners of "Sapru Car Care". The Respondents submitted that the RTI application dated 17.12.2012 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000747) was responded to on 16.1.2013 and the other application dated 17.12.2012 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000478) was responded to on 8.3.2013. Advocate Juneja submitted that the Appellant did not receive the above replies.
3. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties, we direct the CPIO to send their responses dated 16.1.2013 and 8.3.2013 to the Appellant by registered post within five days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO is further directed to provide the particulars of their FAA, while sending copies of the above letters to the Appellant. The Appellant may file an appeal to the FAA, in case he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. In the event of his doing so, the FAA is directed to dispose of the appeal as per provisions of the RTI Act.
4. With the above directions and observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner CIC/SH/A/2014/000747 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/2014/000747