Central Information Commission
Iqbal Singh Hora vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 6 May, 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/2023/611137
Shri IQBAL SINGH HORA ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)
Date of Hearing : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 02.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.12.2022
PIO replied on : 03.01.2023
First Appeal filed on : 10.01.2023
First Appellate Order on : 16.02.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.02.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"In 2003 a reconstitution of BUDHSINGH PRITAMSINGH, Gondia (MS/HSD) was done by the BPCL in Nagpur. In which I was the partner and I am a direct party involved in this reconstitution. I want BPCL to share all the documents related to reconstitution done in 2003 and also please share the process and guidelines which BPCL used to follow while reconstitution in 2003 & 2004. And what all guidelines and process was followed in this reconstitution. I would also like you to share the name of officers involved in this particular reconstitution and the name of TM and sales officer on duty in 2003 & 2004."
The CPIO(Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Maharashtra vide letter dated 03.01.2023 replied as under:-
"Your RTI Query is related to reconstitution of M/s Budhsingh Pritam Singh, Dist-Gondia which comes under BPCL Nagpur Territory. It appears you are having grievance against the process of reconstitution of M/s Budhsingh Pritam Singh.
Page 1 Kindly note grievance redressal doesn't come under RTI Act. You may contact Territory Manager - Nagpur (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Nagpur Retail Territory, Sunny side, P.B.NO. 17, 7, Chitnis Marg, Civil Lines Nagpur - 440001 Tel. Ph. No. 0712-2530671 and visit Territory office with prior appointment for inspecting relevant document related to reconstitution of dealership."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2023 stated as under:-
"I note that in response to point (a), CPIO (Retail), Maharashtra State in his reply noted that you may inspect relevant records of reconstitution by contacting Territory Manager, Nagpur. You have availed the opportunity by visiting territory office on 09.01.2023 and confirmed having inspected documents of reconstitution, your letter confirming list of documents inspected has been placed before me. I am satisfied that all papers related to reconstitution have been shown to you. You have raised contention that papers in which signatures have been taken in front of BPCL officers is not shown to you. However, I note that application for reconstitution carries your signature which has been duly witnessed by Sales Officer has been shown to you. I do not find any merit in your contention and no intervention is called for.
CPIO (Retail), Maharashtra State in his reply has not responded to point (b) and (c). By a copy of this order, I am advising CPIO (Retail), Maharashtra State to respond to 2 points within 15 days."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO, BPCL, Maharashtra has furnished reply dated 21.02.2023 as under :
Query b) Process and guideline which BPCL used to follow for reconstitution in 2003 & 2004.
Reply-Copy of reconstitution guidelines along with relevant circular enclosed.
Query c) Name of officers involved in reconstitution of above mentioned Retail Outlet.
Reply-Information sought is denied under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act which exempts, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
Written submission dated 25.04.2024 has been received from the PIO, BPCL, Maharashtra and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Page 2 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Ashish Rai, DGM-Marketing The Appellant stated that relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date. He stated documents sought by him were not shown at the time inspection. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information sought.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the Appellant has sought information related to reconstitution of retail outlet- M/s Budhsingh Pritamsingh. He stated that the Appellant has already inspected the records related to the queries raised in the instant RTI Application. He stated that complete information has been furnished to the Appellant. However. The name of officers involved in reconstitution of above mentioned Retail Outlet is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act since its disclosure may endanger the life or physical safety of persons involved.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, since the information stands disseminated, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
Appeal is disposed of 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 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)