Central Information Commission
N Dheeraj Kumar 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/2023/106675
Shri N Dheeraj Kumar ... 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 : 19.05.2022
PIO replied on : 22.06.2022
First Appeal filed on : 18.10.2022
First Appellate Order on : 15.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 08.02.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.05.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. How many retail outlets of BPCL Petrol bunks including Company Owned and Company Operated bunks are in Chennai Metropolitan City? And also the following details of such outlets:
a. Name b. Address c. Contact person of dealer d. Phone number e. Extent of outlet
2. Basis / Guideline on which the rent / tariff is adopted for fixing rents and advances to the land taken on lease by BPCL from land owners for metro city areas."
The CPIO, DGM, Business Planning (Retail), TN&P, BPCL, Chennai vide letter dated 22.06.2022 replied as under:-
"1. Please visit our website: - https://www.mysmartfleet.com/en- us/SitePages/LocateUs.aspx -> Location which contains Name, Address & contact number of the Retail Outlets in Chennai. The extent of outlet details which you have asked for are confidential in nature and does not satisfy the Page 1 of 3 larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. The information requested for is of commercial confidence and does not satisfy the larger public interest, hence denied under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2022. The FAA, Head (Retail), South, BPCL vide order dated 15.11.2022 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/CBE/351 dated.22.06.2022 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: Present Respondent: Shri N Krishnamani, CPIO and DGM Marketing (Retail TN & P, BPCL The Appellant referred to his written submission dated 04.06.2024 and stated that the information sought was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 without any application of mind. The Appellant stated that he is not a third party but the legal heir and grandson of Late S V Ramakrishna Mudaliar who is the owner of the property which was leased out to BPCL under a lease deed registered in 1955. However, since the last 20 years there has been no lease payment by BPCL Shri N Krishnamani reiterated his written submission dated 04.06.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under. During the hearing, he specifically argued that rent was fixed mutually between parties after negotiation and based on variable factors and specific details could not be disclosed as it could adversely affect their commercial interests via a vis' other private and public competitors.
"We give below the revised reply in seriatim
1. The Location details can be accessed at : https://www.mysmartfleet.com/ or https://hellobpclin/rolocator/ As regards the extent of outlet details, we do not have a ready compiled data. The information requested is very voluminous and collating such information will disproportionately engage resources and time, which will not be commensurate with the information requested. More importantly, the information requested, does not satisfy larger public interests, pertains to third party and is confidential in nature, hence denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.Page 2 of 3
2. There are a number of variable factors like investment planning, product planning, sales projections, period of lease, ROI, Market value etc which influence the rent fixation for a site. Moreover, the rents are fixed through Negotiations conducted between the appropriate Committee from BPCL and the Landlords and the abovesaid factors are taken into consideration while finalizing the rentals.
As regards the site at Door No. 852 & 853 Mount Road, Chennai, BPCL is ever willing to negotiatiate with the Landlords."
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)