Central Information Commission
Samrat Mondal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 11 July, 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/BPCLD/A/2024/117724.
Shri. SAMRAT MONDAL. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025
Date of Decision : 08.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.12.2023
PIO replied on : 30.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 27.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : 30.03.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 07.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"i) Copy of agreement/agreements executed and signed between BPCL and Niranjan Konra, (S/o Late Kartick Chandra Konra, Udayan Palli, Jamuni, P.O+ P.S. - Bolpur, Dist. -Birbhum, PIN-731204) the license holder of petrol/diesel dispensing pump M/S Rajpath Filling Station, Address - Panchghora, P.O- Katwa, P.S- Katwa, Dist.- Purba Burdwan, PIN-713130.
ii) Copy of agreement/agreements executed and signed between Niranjan Konra and the land owner/owners of M/S Rajpath Filing Station.
Copy of agreement/agreements executed and signed between Niranjan Konra and the land owner/owners of M/S Rajpath Filing Station for extension of contract between them.
iv) Copy of agreement/agreements executed and signed between Niranjan Konra and the land owner/owners of M/S Rajpath Filing Station for termination of contract between them"
The CPIO, DGM (marketing) vide letter dated 30.01.2024 replied as under:-
"1. The Dispensing Pump & Selling License (DPSL) Agreement is a fiduciary document between Principal and Licensee, hence denied u / s * 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Page 1
2. The RO (Retail Outlet - M/s Rajpath Filling Station) is a DC (Dealer Control) site, hence such information is available to us.
3. Same as above in para no. 2.
4. Same as above in para no. 2."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.02.2024. The FAA, Head Retail vide order dated 30.03.2024 replied as under:-
"Based on the documents produced by applicant and information provided by respondent, it is observed that:-
1. Applicant has sought information for 4 points in his application. 2.
Respondent has given reply for all 4 points as per information available with him and as per provisions RTI act 2005 duly quoting the relevant clauses. 3. For the aforesaid RTI application respondent has replied appropriately based on records available."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 24.06.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..The responses were as follows:
Query 1. Since the Dispensing Pump & Selling License (DPSL) Agreement is a fiduciary document between Principal and Licensee, hence it is being denied under section 8 (1) e of the RTI Act 2005 Query 2,3,4: The RO (Retail Outlet M/S Rajpath Filling Station) is a DC (Dealer Control) site where land is not leased to the company hence keeping information related to land details or any agreements related with land are not kept with us. Inadvertently in the reply due to typo error the word "not" has not been placed in the response. We regret the typo error and will ensure such mistake is not repeated in future.
III. Upon receiving the RTI reply, the appellant filed a first appeal dated 27.02.2024 with the Head of Retail East, alleging that he is aggrieved by the decision of CPIO and requested him to provide the necessary information to his RTI application. IV. The Head of Retail East reiterated our response via appeal registration no. BPCLD/A/P/24/00016 dated 15.03.2024. The First Appellate Authority also advised the appellant that if he is an affected party, he may alternatively approach the Territory Manager Retail Kolkata/State Head West Bengal & Sikkim for the resolution of any grievances Copies of the first appeal and the reply are enclosed as Annexures C and D, respectively.
V. Upon receiving reply from 1" Appellate Authority the applicant raised a second appeal before CIC vide letter dated 29.05.2024 a copy of which have been served to us received on 23.06.2025. The applicant again requested for the information mentioning BPCL Page 2 being a public sector company must place larger public interest over its fiduciary or personal relations as per Sub sections 8 (e) &
(j) of RTI Act 2005. (Copy of second appeal enclosed as Annx E) With respect to 2nd appeal we (CPIO) would like to keep our views as under for your esteemed self to consider.
In our initial response we have quoted DPSL (Dispensing Pump Selling License) is a fiduciary document and hence cannot be provided under section 8 (1) e. We have not mentioned any section of 8(1) j in our response as wrongly quoted by applicant. With respect to information sought for land the same has been clarified above since it is a DC (Dealer controlled outlet) the information related to land agreements are not available with us. VI. As demonstrated by the above, we have addressed all queries raised in the RTI applications and have always responded to and disposed of the applications and appeals on time. We respectfully request that the complaint be disposed of..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Indranil Banerjee, DGM (Marketing) The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the PIO in their reply has mentioned that information sought at point No. 2-4 is already available in their records but refused to furnish the same. He stated that no exemption has been claimed by the PIO while denying the information sought at point No. 2-4. He averred that information sought at point No. 1 of the RTI Application relates to copy of agreement/agreements executed and signed between BPCL and Niranjan Konra, the license holder of petrol/diesel dispensing pump M/S Rajpath Filling Station. He stated that there is larger public interest involved in the matter and the agreement being a public document ought to have been provided by the PIO.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that since the Dispensing Pump & Selling License (DPSL) Agreement is a fiduciary document between Principal and Licensee, hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005. As regards the point No. 2,3 and 4, the RO (Retail Outlet M/S Rajpath Filling Station) is a DC (Dealer Control) site where land is not leased to the company hence keeping information related to land details or any agreements related with land are not part of their records. He averred that inadvertently in the reply due to typo error the word "not" has not been placed in the response.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. Commission observes that the written submission filed by the PIO is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given Page 3 circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly Appeal is 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)