Central Information Commission
Mr.Monish Gulati vs Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas on 20 September, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001312
Appellant : Monish Gulati
Respondent : HPCL, Mumbai
Date of hearing : 20.9.2012
Date of decision : 20.9.2012
FACTS
Heard today dated 20.9.2012. Appellant present. However, nobody has appeared for HPCL, despite notice.
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 26.8.2011, the appellant had sought information on 06 paras about the sale of ethanol blended diesel by HPCL and the matters related therewith. This was responded to by CPIO vide letter dated 10.11.2011. However, during the hearing, the appellant submits that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him on paras
(b), (c ) & (e) of the RTI application. These paras are reproduced below:
"(b) Did HPCL carry out retail sale of Biodiesel blend? If so what quantity was sold and at percentage of blending?
(c ) How much HSD was sold to the Indian Railways by HPCL for the year 2010-2011? Was blending with Biodiesel carried out, if so at what percentage?
(e) Has HPCL considered the marketing of E-diesel or Ethanol blended diesel on pilot / experimental basis in India?"
3. In para (b), the appellant has sought to know asto whether HPCL had carried out retail sale of biodiesel blend and, if yes, the quantity thereof. The CPIO had informed the appellant that the data was not immediately available.
This cryptic reply smacks to casualness on the part of CPIO. Hence, the CPIO is hereby directed to revisit the matter and respond to this query on the basis of available records. In para (c), the appellant had sought information about the sale of HSD to the Indian Railways but the CPIO in his response had mentioned that no biodiesel was sold to the Indian Railways. This clearly shows that the CPIO did not understand the question properly as HSD is totally different from biodiesel. Hence, the CPIO is desired to respond to this query appropriately. In para (e), the appellant had sought to know whether HPCL was contemplating marketing of E-diesel on experimental basis. The CPIO had informed the appellant that this information was not available. This cannot be said to be proper response to the query. The answer has to be either 'yes' or 'no'.
4. As mentioned hereinabove, the parasite (b), (c) & (e) have not been responded to adequately by the CPIO. Hence, the CPIO is hereby directed to respond to these paras in the light of the above observations in 04 weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. The DGM-RTI & CPIO HPCL, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, P. B. No. 11041, Mumbai-20
2. Shri Monish Gulati D-26, Anand Niketan, (FF), New Delhi-21