Central Information Commission
Sabyasachi Mandal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 25 September, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BPCLD/C/2023/129706
Shri SABYASACHI MANDAL निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)
Date of Hearing : 19.09.2024
Date of Decision : 19.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2023
PIO replied on : 11.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 11.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Has the said last reconstitution of the said Dealer/ RO - M/s Exchange done in strict confirmatory to the norms of the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies formulated and agreed upon - Marketing Discipline Guidelines relating to Policy Guidelines for Reconstitution Of Retail Outlet Dealerships, if No, then under which policy has the reconstitution processed been carried out.
2. Have you obtained the Relinquishment deed or NOC from legal heirs not proposing to join dealership from the family members of the outgoing partner - Shri, Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala, if Yes, provide copy of the same.
3. As per clause 3.3 of the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies formulated and agreed upon Marketing Discipline Guidelines relating to Policy Guidelines for Reconstitution Of Retail Outlet Dealerships - A Partner(s) can resign from the dealership after 10 years of holding dealership. In the event of resignation by partner(s), the remaining partner(s) put together shall hold controlling stake i.e. at least 51% shares in the dealership - Has this been followed in relating to the last reconstitution of the said dealership M/s Exchange, If Yes provide copy of Partnership Deed.
Page 1
4. As per clause 3.5 c) of the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies formulated and agreed upon Marketing Discipline Guidelines relating to Policy Guidelines for Reconstitution Of Retail Outlet Dealerships- Post reconstitution, continuing partner/s (including legal heirs of deceased proprietor/partner/s) should hold controlling stake i.e. at least 51% share in the dealership - Has this been followed in relating to the last reconstitution of the said dealership M/s Exchange, If Yes provide copy of Partnership Deed.
5. As per clause 3.5 d) of the Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies formulated and agreed upon Marketing Discipline Guidelines relating to Policy Guidelines for Reconstitution Of Retail Outlet Dealerships - Incoming partner should meet all other applicable conditions including multiple dealership norms. Have you verified all educational degrees, of incoming partners, from the issuing institute and also for all other documents as submitted by them - If Yes provide copy of such confirmation."
The CPIO vide letter dated 11.05.2023 replied as under:-
"1. The last reconstitution for the RO M/s Exchange was done as per the prevailing reconstitution guidelines.
2. The outgoing partner namely Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ganeriwal retired from the dealership during his lifetime hence no NOC or relinquishment deed from his family members was required or taken.
3. The guidelines quoted here are not correct, hence no question of such adherence or required to follow.
4. Same as above in para no. 3.
5. During the reconstitution process ID proof and education proof have been verified from the original documents produced by incoming partners."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.05.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Indranil Banerjee, CPIO The CPIO submitted that information which is available on record has been furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the case records which reveal that appropriate response has been sent by the Respondent on the basis of available records, in terms of the RTI Act.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires Page 2 adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent information available on records. Considering the fact that the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission finds that in the absence of any wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)