Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Gauri Katiyar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) 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/IOCLD/A/2023/613700

Ms. Gauri Katiyar                                                       ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                      VERSUS/बनाम

CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Lucknow                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent


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          :             29.01.2023
PIO replied on                    :             14.02.2023
First Appeal filed on             :             23.02.2023
First Appellate Order on          :             15.03.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :             17.03.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"1) Reasons accepted by IOCL for cancellation of the Tank Truck Lorries against the sales order as mentioned above in line with the Transport Agreement and ITDG

2) Action taken by the Corporation/India Oil Kanpur Terminal as per the ITDG and the Transport Agreement

3) date and time of the next loads/Shipments assigned to the above tank truck lorries (TTLs) after the cancellation/Removal/Refusal by IOCL Kanpur Terminal

4) Documents provided by the Transporter and held by you under which the TTLs were cancelled/removed/refused the TTLs against the sales order as mentioned above"

The CPIO, IOCL, Lucknow vide letter dated 14.02.2023 provided reasons for cancellation of the TTs as mentioned in the RTI application along with all the respective letters.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2023 stated as under:-

"अपीलकर्ता ने आनलतइन अपील सं° IOCLD/A/E/23/00064 दिनतंक 23.02.2023, उसके आवेिन सं० IOCLD/R/E/23/00171 दिनतंक 29.01.2023 कत जन सूचनत अधिकतरी द्वतरत दिये गए उत्तर दिनतंक 14.02.2023 से असंर्ुष्ट होकर ितखिल की है ।

मैंने जन सूचनत अधिकतरी द्वतरत िी गई सूचनत दिनतंक 14.02.2023 कत अवलोकन दकयत और मैं उससे सहमर् हूूँ।"

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Represented by Shri Jeetu Singh Katiyar Respondent: Shri S P Dubey, General Manager (Operations), BPCL, Lucknow The Appellant's representative stated that satisfactory information was not provided in this matter, till date.

Shri S P Dubey stated that reply to the RTI application as per available records was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.02.2023 wherein it was stated that no action has been taken against the respective transporters for the cancelled TT as all the transporters have complained against the forcible booking of wrong shortage in the TTs loaded for the mentioned RO, misbehaviour of the RO staff with the TT crew and delay in decantation of the TTs at the RO. Vide letter dated 27.09.2022 common complaints have been received from 14 transporters mentioning that they are not ready to load their TTs for the RO. Even after several complaints received from the transporters and reluctance shown by the transporters in taking the load to the RO, the terminal has always ensured that the indent of the RO always gets executed and the RO does not go dry. Due to the above reasons the transporters do not want to go to the RO dealership and they are required to convince the TT crew as well as the transporters each time.

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. Hence, 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 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)