Central Information Commission
Mahesh Narayan Trivedi vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 29 July, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/636931-BJ
Mr. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi
(E mail [email protected])
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Udaipur Retail Regional Office:
50, Saheli Nagar, New Polo Ground,
Udaipur - 313001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.07.2020
Date of Decision : 29.07.2020
Date of RTI application 06.10.2018
CPIO's response 05.11.2018
Date of the First Appeal 09.11.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 06.12.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the copy of the petroleum license under which the retail outlet (Vijay Motors) was run by HPCL during the interim period 13.03.1974 to 16.11.1977 on Plot A and Plot B, etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 05.11.2018, denied disclosure of information referring to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and stated that no public interest would be served but the Appellant's personal interest and that the disclosure would compromise the ability of the Public Authority to find the best way to legally defend the interest of the Company and Company Officers, who is Page 1 of 3 threatened by legal action of the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.12.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Bohra through VC; Respondent: Mr. Suneet Batty, Head Legal, North West Zone and Mr. Vijay Kumar Patel, DGM & CPIO, Ahmedabad Retail Region and Mr. Vineet Kumar Pohani, CPIO & Dy. GM, Udaipur through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought had been received by him through Respondent's written submission dated 21.07.2020 and therefore, he did not wish to pursue the matter further. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that a suitable reply was provided by the CPIO/FAA, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 21.07.2020 wherein a point-wise submission was made in addition to his earlier submissions, grounds of Appeal and documents in support of his 2nd Appeal filed before the Commission. A reference of the decision of the Commission was also made with regard to supply of information in CIC/HPCLD/A/2018/634049-BJ dated 04.06.2020. He inter-alia prayed to the Commission to give necessary direction to CPIO-HPCL to provide the pending documents/information as sought in the original RTI application dated 06.10.2018 within a reasonable period of 15 days as also to provide clear, precise, cogent and specific and updated point-wise information.
The Commission was in receipt of an another written submission from the Appellant dated 24.07.2020 wherein it was submitted that he had received the information sought against his original RTI application dated 06.10.2018 through CPIO-HPCL written submission dated 21.07.2020. Therefore, he did not wish to pursue the matter further.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 21.07.2020 wherein while narrating the background of the case, at the outset it was submitted that the CPIO/FAA had suitably responded to the RTI application/Appeal of the Applicant. In support of their contention, the Respondent referred to the decision of the Commission in Milap Choraria Vs. Department of Revenue CIC/AT/A/2008/00025 dated 27.07.2009 in respect of denial of information. The CPIO further provided the details of the earlier and present litigations, Appeals and complaints initiated by the Appellant as well as his relative which are narrated as under:-
1. Mahesh Narayan Trivedi and Avinash Trivedi vs. HPCL WP 6412/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan;
2. Complaints before Explosive Authorities;
3. Shri Mahesh Narayan Trivedi vs. HPCL before District Magistrate, Udaipur;Page 2 of 3
4. M/s Vijay Motors vs Shri Avinash Trivedi, Shri Mahesh Narayan Trivedi, HPCL and others filed before Hon'ble Civil Judge North Udaipur- M/s Vijay Motors filed Civil Suit No. 104/2018 and 150/2018, etc. Furthermore, a detailed point-wise response was provided. Hence, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the instant Appeal.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the request made by the Appellant not to pursue the matter further, no further intervention of the Commission is required.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 29.07.2020
Page 3 of 3