Central Information Commission
Smt.Vandana Nitin Deshpande vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 26 July, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000070
Appellant : Vandana Nitin Deshpande
Respondent : HPCL
Date of hearing : 26.7.2012
Date of decision : 26.7.2012
FACTS
Heard today dated 26.7.2012. Appellant not present. HPCL is represented by Adv. Amol B. Karande.
2. The RTI application filed by the appellant is not available in the Commission's file. However, from the detailed appeal memo dated 7.7.2011 filed before this Commission, I gather the impression that the appellant was one of the candidates for allotment of retail outlet dealership at Yawal, District Jalgaon. It appears that she was not selected and had sought certain information in this connection. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.3.2011, had issued notice to one Ajay Dayaram Mahajan to u/s 11 (1) for soliciting his views regarding disclosure of information but said Mahajan had not consented for the disclosure. Resultantly, the CPIO had refused to disclose requested information to the appellant except for certain basic information viz, name, age, qualification and experience certificate of the successful candidate. The view taken by the CPIO was upheld by the AA in order dated 24.4.2011 wherein he had held that the requested information was barred from disclosure under clauses (d) (e) and (j) of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
3. During the hearing, Adv. Karande forcefully pleads that requested information is third party information and disclosure thereof would violate the privacy of the third party. He also drawn my attention to clauses (d),
(e) & (j) of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. Referring to clause (d), he submits that the requested information involves commercial confidence and, therefore, cannot be disclosed. Referring to clause (e), he submits that the information is being held by HPCL in fiduciary capacity and, therefore, is barred from disclosure. Besides, he also submits that the requested information is personal in nature and, therefore, is barred from disclosure under clause (j). He, therefore, strongly defends the decisions of the CPIO & AA.
4. Suffice to say that selection process is a competitive process. The competitive process has to be transparent for it to be credible and to save it from the vice of arbitrariness, mala fide or corruption. The question before the Delhi High Court was whether the marks obtained by other candidates in a competitive examination were to be disclosed to the querist or not. The High Court had observed as follows:-
"5. I do not find any merit in any of these submissions of the petitioner. The marks obtained by any candidate in the process of examination / selection, which is of a competitive nature, cannot be said to be personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The marks are awarded by the examining body like the UPSC. It is, therefore, having direct relationship to the public activity of the examining body, like UPSC in this case. The process of a competitive examination has to be transparent for it to be credible and to save it from the vice of arbitrariness, mala fide or corruption. Therefore, it is completely in public interest that the said marks obtained by other candidates, who may be in competition with the querist, are disclosed so that the querist is satisfied that the competitive selection process has been conducted in transparent and lawful manner. The defence raised by the petitioner under section 8 (1) (j) was not clearly not available in the light of these facts."
5. The ratio of the above decision clearly applies in the present case. Selection process is a competitive process and it is required to be transparent for it to be credible. Besides, it has been the consistent view of this Commission in a large number of cases that the records held by the public authority regarding LPG distributorship or petrol pump distributorship are allowed to be inspected by the looser candidates and they be permitted to take extracts there-from. The only exceptions t hereto are The Bank Statement, Income Tax Return and PAN Card etc. In view of the above, the orders of the CPIO and AA are set-aside and the CPIO is hereby directed to offer inspection of the relevant records to the appellant and to permit him to take extracts there- from subject to bar prescribed hereinabove.
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 CPIO HPCL, Aurangabad Retail Regional Office, G-39, Town Centre, CIDCO, P. B. No. 667, Aurangabad-431003
2. Smt. Vandana Nitin Deshpande Court road, Yawal, Jalgaon