Central Information Commission
Atindranath Chatterjee vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No.
No.CIC/BPCLD/A/2020/141899
Mr. Atindranath Chatterjee ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata , Bharat
Bhawan, Plot No. 31, Kit Scheme No. 118
Prince GulamMohd. Shah Road, Golf
Green, PB No. 16201 & 16204, Kolkata
West Bengal-700095
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
appeal:-
RTI : 01-09-2020 FA : 27-10-2020 SA : 30-12-2020
30
CPIO : 06-10-2020 FAO : 05-11-2020 Hearing: 05
5-08-2022
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.
Kolkata The appellant seeking information is as under:-
Page 1 of 42. The CPIO vide letter dated 06-10-2020 2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8(1) (a) & (g) of RTI Act, 2005.Being 2005 dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed file first appeal dated 27-10-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 05-11-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal 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.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice.. The respondent, Shri Ajeet Singh, CPIO/ Business Development Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing..
4. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 06.10.2020, 06.10.2020 they have informed the appellant that "the documents demanded by him cannot be provided to him as it would prej prejudicially udicially affect the security, safety, strategic and economic interest of BPCL or Govt. of India Undertaking and are denied under section 8 (1) (a) & 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2005."
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding copy of lease deed, parcha parch etc. which shows that the respondent has directly purchased the said land from the land owner and other queries related thereto. The Commission observes that the land regarding which the Page 2 of 4 information is being sought by the appellant belongs to third party, therefore any document i.e Lease Deed etc. executed between the respondent and third party cannot be provided to the appellant. These documents are related to personal information of third party which has bearing on their commercial interest and disclosure of such information would divulge their business operations and harm the competitive position of third party. Hence, these documents cannot be provided to the appellant being exempted under section 8 (1) (d) & 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
6. In the context of non disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was held as under:
14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
7. Moreover, although the information sought has rightly been denied by the respondent but they have failed to invoke the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, therefore the Commission cautions the respondent to be more careful in future while giving reply to the RTI Application.
8. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 410. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 10-08-2022
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, Kolkata ,
Bharat Bhawan, Plot No. 31, Kit Scheme No. 118
Prince GulamMohd. Shah Road, Golf Green,
PB No. 16201 & 16204, Kolkata
West Bengal-700095
2. Mr.Atindranath Chatterjee
Page 4 of 4