Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shek Rafikul vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 15 September, 2022

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/BPCLD/A/2021/107172 and
CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/107237

Mr. Shek Rafikul                                       ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO                                                   ... ितवादी/Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhawan
Plot No. 31, KIT Scheme No. 118, Prince
Gulam Mohd. Shah Road, Golf Green
Kolkata-700095

CPIO
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Head Office, Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6
Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, PB No.
688, Mumbai-400001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

 RTI : 10-09-2020 &              FA : 16-10-2020 &
                                                           SA      : 16-02-2021
 06-09-2020                      13-10-2020
 CPIO : Not on Record            FAO : Not on Record       Hearing : 09-09-2022

                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kolkata & Mumbai. The appellant seeking information on various points including inter-alia is as under:-

etc

2. No reply of CPIO is placed on record. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 16-10-2020 & 13-10-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. No reply of FAA is placed on record. He 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 did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri Ajit Singh Sahengar, CPIO/ Business Developer & Network Operation, O/o BPCL, Kolkata along with Shri Vijay Sehgal, CPIO, O/o BPCL, Mumbai attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

5. In file no. CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/107172, the respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 13.10.2020, they have already provided relevant information sought at point nos. (a) & (b) of RTI application. He further submitted that the information sought at point no. (c) of RTI application has been denied as per section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 being related to third party personal information. He also submitted that the information sought at point no. (d) is not available in their office.

6. In file no. CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/107237, the respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 17.09.2020, they have informed the appellant that "the Page 2 of 4 information sought is third party information and not in the interest of public at large, hence denied under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005."

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondents and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding supply of gas cylinders to M/s Shyama, Bharat Gas Distributor, G.T. Road Crossing, Bandel, Hoogly and other queries related thereto. The Commission observes that in file no. CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/107172, the quantity and supply of LPG cylinders from 2013-14 & 2019-20 as sought at point nos. (a) & (b) of RTI application has already been provided to the appellant. As far as information sought at point no. (c) of RTI application is concerned, the appellant is seeking copy of documents regarding total quantity of gas cylinders procured by M/s Shyama which is a personal information related to third party. The disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the respondent has rightly denied the information sought on this point under relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, w.r.t the information sought at point no. (d) of RTI application, the respondent has already informed the appellant that the same is not available in their office. The Commission observes that although an appropriate reply as per their available records has already been provided by the respondent but the same has not been placed before the Commission, therefore the Commission admonishes the respondent for not uploading their reply/ relevant documents on the records of the Commission. The Commission cautions the respondent to be more careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act, 2005.

8. In file no. CIC/BPCLD/A/2021/107237, the respondent has denied the requested information under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 ab initio which is not correct. Nevertheless, the concerned CPIO, O/o BPCL, Kolkata has already given a point-wise reply to the appellant which is found to be in order and same is being upheld by the Commission.

9. With the above observations, both the appeals are hereby disposed of.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 13-09-2022 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 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhawan Plot No. 31, KIT Scheme No. 118, Prince Gulam Mohd. Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata-700095

2. CPIO Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Head Office, Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, PB No. 688, Mumbai-400001

3. Mr. Shek Rafikul Page 4 of 4