Ravi Purohit vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 30 September, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Ravi Purohit vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 30 September, 2022

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/IOCLD/A/2021/699420


Mr. Ravi Purohit                                   ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO                                               ...!ितवादी/Respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
M.P. State Office, Indian Oil Bhavan,
16, Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal,
M. P.-462 011

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 29-07-2020            FA    : 26-09-2020          SA       : 10-01-2021

CPIO : 26-08-2020           FAO : 08-10-2020            Hearing : 26-09-2022

                                 ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bhopal. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 26-08-2020 had denied the information under section 8(1) (d) and (e) of RTI Act 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 26-09-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 08-10-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. 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.

Page 1 of 3

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, CGM (Finance) attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

4. The written submissions of the appellant and the respondent are taken on record.

5. The appellant submitted that the CPIO prima facie denied the information sought by him in his RTI application under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. The appellant stated that at the stage of first appeal, the FAA had denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application. The appellant further relied upon the case in CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal in support of his arguments.

6. The respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.08.2020. However, at the stage of first appeal, the FAA had informed the appellant that "the process for selection of retail outlet dealership for the aforesaid location is still under process and thus the same cannot be provided. Moreover, the same stands exempted from disclosure by virtue of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) whereby the information sought relates to personal information...".

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is aggrieved that the respondent has wrongly not provided information to him on his RTI application dated 29.07.2020. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the factual position in the matter has been informed to the appellant. The Commission is of the view that the CPIO and the FAA has taken two different stand in denying the information to the appellant on his RTI application. Further, the respondent also contended that the process of appointment for the said location is still under consideration/process and not yet completed. The Commission is of the view that if the process has not yet completed then information cannot be disclosed to the RTI applicant. But the said factual position has not been informed by the CPIO in its reply. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to give revised reply to the appellant informing him the current factual status of the process, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Page 2 of 3

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




                                                               नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                           Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                   सूचना आयु )
                                         Information Commissioner (सू

                                                            दनांक / Date : 26-09-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)


S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)




Addresses of the parties:

     1.      THE CPIO
             Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
             M.P. State Office, Indian Oil Bhavan,
             16, Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal,
             M. P.-462 011

     2.      Mr. Ravi Purohit




                                                                            Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission