Central Information Commission
C Prabagaran 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/2023/619806
Shri C Prabagaran ... 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 : 01.12.2022
PIO replied on : 28.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 07.01.2023
First Appellate Order on : 10.02.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 19.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.12.2022 seeking information on following 16 points:-
"1. Provide list of total number of candidates applied Retail Outlet Petrol Pump each Location from Tindivanam to Marakkanam State Highway (SH- 134) Villupuram District under jurisdiction of BPCL Trichy. It should be mentioned like Sr.No, Name of applicants, application form number, group type and status from 2010 to 2022.
2. Provide list what kind of communication to applicants in date wise order each Location from Tindivanam to Marakkanam (SH-134) along with file noting from 2018 to 2022. Inspection of work, Documents and Records.
3. Provide List of total Draw for selection of candidates and who got selected SH-134, Official are presented during draw along with file noting from 2018 to 2022 and Records.
4. Provide List in date wise order each Location who got Rejected SH-134 before or after FVC etc., along with file noting from 2018 to 2022 and Records.
Etc."
The CPIO, DGM, Business Planning (Retail) TN&P, BPCL, Chennai vide letter dated 28.12.2022 replied as under:-
"1. Your query is not specific & clear. However you can view the advertisement released in the year 2018 using the link:-
https://www.petroleumpumpdealerchayan in Page 1 of 4
2. Your query is not specific & clear. For 2018 advertisement, communication to applicants has been made via e-mail by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
3. Your query is not specific & clear. However for 2018 advertisement, you can check using the link: https://www.petroleumpumpdealerchayan in
4. The information requested is confidential and fiduciary in nature and has no relationship to any public activity, hence denied under Section 8 (1) (d) & 8 (1)
(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. Please visit website: https://www.petrolpumpdealerchayan in-> Brochure Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Outlets Etc."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2023. The FAA, Head (Retail), South, BPCL vide order dated 10.02.2023 stated as under:-
"I have considered your Appeal and application for information submitted to DGM Business Planning (Retail) TN & P & CPIO (Retail).
I find that the information provided by DGM Business Planning (Retail) TN & P & CPIO (Retail) in response to your RTI query SO (R) /TN &P/RTI/TRI/00810 dated 28 12 2022 is in order With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri N Krishnamani, CPIO and DGM Marketing (Retail TN & P, BPCL The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
Shri N Krishnamani reiterated his written submission dated 06.06.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
Brief Background:
• BPCL had released an advertisement for selection of dealerships pan India, vide advertisement released on 25.11.2018. In this advertisement, a Location - Siruvadi, Markkanam Village, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu State was also advertised in Regular category, reserved for SC applicants.
• Against this advertisement, we had received 21 applications. Of these, 7 applicants had offered land and hence were in Group 1. As per the laid down process, draw of lots (DOL) for the Group 1 applicants was held and one Mr Tamizh Priyan D was selected. The RTI applicant, Mr. C Prabagaran, too is an applicant for the said location, however he has Page 2 of 4 not offered any land, so he is in Group 3, as per the norms. (The DOL is an Online Computerized draw conducted by external agency MSTC in the presence of District Magistrate or some equivalent guest and the available eligible candidates.
• Subsequently as per the selection procedure, after the selected candidate Mr Tamizh Priyan D had submitted all documents, scrutiny of all submitted documents was conducted by an Application Scrutiny Committee (ASC committee) and subsequently land offered by him was checked by another Land Evaluation Committee (LEC). Thereafter Field Verification of the selected candidate was conducted by a FVC committee. After successful completion of all evaluations - documents / land & credentials, LOI was issued to the selected candidate - Mr. Tamizh Priyan D. • As per information available, the RTI applicant, Mr. C. Prabagaran, who could not get selected, is related to an IOC Retail Outlet located nearby in the same Trading Area and is trying his best to ensure this Retail Outlet does not get commissioned as it would have a direct impact on the sales of the existing IOC RO. The RTI applicant has filed multiple grievances & RTIs on the issue, to prevent this NRO from getting commissioned.
RTI Queries / Replies elucidated :
1. 2. 3 & 4. The RTI applicant has asked for applicant details for location "Tindivanam to Marakkanam State Highway (SH-134) Villupuram District". We have not advertised any such location. Hence the CPIO has replied against these queries 1,2,3 & 4 that the query is not specific & clear. However, CP10 in his reply, has shared the website address which can be accessed by anybody. All locations including nos of applicants with their names & in which Group the applicant has applied is available Location wise, on this website. By accessing this website, the RTI applicant can get details of applicants for any advertised location.
5. The RTI applicant has sought information on procedural policies and guidelines on dealer selection. The brochure on all Dealer selection / rejection guidelines, procedures etc are available online and the link was shared with the Applicant by the CPIO.
6. The query 6 is not specific & clear. However, as an information generally for New Retail Outlets, NOC from District Administration (DM office), Local Body for building permit, PESO, and Highway Authorities is sought, as applicable.
7. All officials of BPCL are governed by the laid down governance / Disciplinary guidelines. The applicant in this query has not sought any specific information but tried to elicit opinion from the CPIO, hence CPIO has replied accordingly.
8. Details of BPCL officers were provided, as sought by the applicant.
9. In this query, the applicant has sought a list of BPCL officers with details, who were involved at various stages of selection in Siruvadi Page 3 of 4 location. This is an Internal matter and confidential in nature. Also, disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals concerned, hence denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
10. 12. 13. The link to the website has been shared with the RTI applicant by the CPIO. All details/requirements regarding the land are available in the brochure therein. The applicant in these queries has not sought any specific information, but tried to elicit opinion from the CPIO, hence CPIO has replied accordingly.
11. The query on setting up of SC/ST trade unions is not specific & clear. Hence replied by CPIO accordingly.
14. In this query, no information is sought. Hence replied by CPIO accordingly.
15. In this query, the RTI applicant has not sought any specific information but tried to elicit an opinion from the CPIO, hence CPIO replied accordingly.
16. The requirement is not specific & clear. The RTI applicant has vaguely sought permission to inspect all records without being specific.
The RI! applicant, who has not been selected for the location at Siruvadi , is trying to create roadblocks and delaying the commissioning of the New Retail outlet, so as to safeguard his business interest at IOC outlet.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided. 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 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)