Central Information Commission
Mr.Khurshid Ahmed Chhipa vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 1 February, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/MA/A/2011/000002/LS
Appellant Shri Khurshid Ahmed Chhipa
Public Authority Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Date of hearing 19th & 20th January and 01st Feb; 2011.
Date of decision 01.02.2011
Facts :-
The matter is heard on 19th & 20th Jan, 2011. The appellant remained present on both the dates. IOCL was represented by the following officers :-
(i) Shri Y.K. Gupta, DGM (LS); (ii) Shri D.S. Shingare, DGM (HR); (iii) Shri V.V. Naik, Chief Manager (MC); (iv) Shri S.D.S Sodhi, Manager (Law); (v) Shri Asim Tiwari, Sr Manager (OS).
2. The background of the matter is that the appellant had applied for dealership of petrol pump at Borunda village of Distt Jodhpur and offered land vide offer dated 7.1.2002 to IBP Co Ltd (since merged in IOCL). Discussions were held between the parties for finalising the terms of lease on 15.7.2002. The lease-deed was executed on 29.11.2002. Thereafter, the land in question was developed by erstwhile IBP Co Ltd by spending a considerable amount of money. However, IBP neither issued Letter of Intent nor signed a dealership agreement with the appellant.
3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that for the sake of dealership, he resigned from a temporary job that he was holding in the Government of Rajasthan. Besides, he also spent 25 to 30 lacks on the purchase and development of land on which the petrol pump was to be put up. The fact that IBP did not give him dealership came as a shock to him. It is in this context that vide RTI application dated 30.7.2010, he had sought the following information :-
"Mail Sender : Rakesh Malhotra, GM (NR)
Mail to : Rajesh Jhingen, S.K. Khosla
Ref No : 2210
Date : 21.4.2005
Time : 5.45 PM
Subject : Proposal for IBP COCO village, Borunda Dist,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
E-mail of following detail available from the record of EP (P) SW and ED (P) any marketing HO Mumbai."
4. Shri Yashvir Gupta, Dy GM vide letter dated 9.9.2010 had refused to disclose the requested information in terms of section 8 (1)
(d) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the AA vide order dated 25.10.2010 had affirmed the decision of CPIO.
5. The present appeal is directed against the above orders.
6. The parties are heard on both the days. The appellant's submission is plain and simple : he was led up the garden path by IBP and all the steps taken by him came to a naught as the petrol pump was not allotted to him. He, therefore, strongly pleads for the supply of the requested information so that he can use it in the Supreme Court when his SLP comes up for hearing on 1.3.2011.
7. On the other hand, Shri Gupta submits that at one point of time, there was policy of allotment of petrol pump dealership under Land Owner category. However, this policy did not last long. There was change of policy and the new policy was designated as Corporation Owned Corporation Operated (COCO) policy. It is primarily due to the change of policy that the dealership could not be offered to the appellant. He also mentions that the appellant could not be interviewed for this purpose which was a prerequisite. After making the above submissions, Shri Gupta submits that he would like to seek short adjournment to bring his lawyer to plead the case before the Commission as the stakes for IOCL are very high inasmuchas it is not a solitary case and there are many similar cases and that the order passed by the Commission would set a precedent. Incidentally, he also submits that the appellant's case was dismissed by the High Court.
8. In view of the above, the matter was adjourned to 28.1.2011 at 1530 hrs. The matter, however, could be heard on 28.01.2011 and was adjourned to 01.02.2011 at 1030 hrs.
9. As scheduled, the matter is heard today dated 01.02.2011. The appellant is present along with his counsel Shri Abhijit Sengupta, Advocate. IOCL is represented by the following officers :-
(i) Shri Y.K. Gupta, DGM(RS) & PIO;
(ii) Shri S.L. Rahuria, CISM & APIO;
(iii) Ms Namita Kumari, Law officer;
(iv) Shri Asim Tiwari;
(v) Shri D.S. Shingan; and
(vi) Shri V.V. Nayak.
10. It is the principal submission of Shri Y.K. Gupta that the requested information is barred from disclosure under clause (d) of section 8(1). This clause is extracted below :-
"(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information."
It is his submission that allotment of petrol pump to the appellant herein is a matter of commercial confidence and involves trade secrets. Therefore, the requested information cannot be disclosed.
11. On the other hand, Adv. Sengupta submits that requested information is nothing but a communication sent by Shri Rakesh Malhotra, General Manager(NR) to Shri Rajesh Jhingan, another General Manager posted in the Head Office and, thus, constitutes official record of IOCL and that it does neither involve commercial confidence or trade secrets of IOCL. He, therefore, strongly pleads for the disclosure of requested information.
DECISION
12. It may be recalled that the appellant had applied for dealership of petrol pump and had taken requisite steps in this regard, including execution of the lease deed and development of the land in-question at a considerable cost. He, however, was not allotted the petrol pump due to change of policy of IOCL. In all fairness, the IOCL officials have produced before us copy of the e-mail in-question and on a careful perusal thereof, we have no hesitation in holding that it is not covered under clause (d) of section 8(1) as it neither involves commercial confidence nor trade secrets. It is simply a communication sent by one General Manager to another General Manager and, thus, constitutes official record of IOCL.
13. It may be apt to mention that the preamble of the RTI Act states that this law has been enacted "to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority". Disclosure is the rule and non disclosure,- an exception. Keeping in view the scheme of law and the provisions of section 8(1), in particular, in our opinion, the requested information is not barred from disclosure. Hence, it is ordered that a copy of the e-mail, as referred to in para-03 above, may be supplied to the appellant in 02 weeks time, free of cost.
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) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Deputy general Manager(HR) & CPIO, IOCL, Commerce Centre, 2nd Floor, 78 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034.
2. Shri Khurshid Ahmed Chhipa s/o late Mohd. Yousuf Chhipa, Near Kabron Ki Pole, Social Welfare Building, PIPAR City-
342601 Distt. Jodhpur(Rajasthan).