Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

C) Whether the dealership agreements can be renewed automatically after their expiry? In how many cases have the dealership agreements been renewed by BPCL in absence of an application/representation from the dealership on the date of expiry of such agreement?

D) In how many cases of expiry of dealership agreements, has the BPCL stopped the supply of MS/HSD on the day of expiry of such agreements? E) Whether there is any provision to check the flash point of the MS/HSD before it is sent to the dealership from the depot? If yes cite/refer to the relevant provision. F) Whether the Marketing Discipline Guidelines are mandatory guidelines for testing the flash point of samples? What is the authenticity and legitimacy of the samples collected for the above purpose if the procedure laid down under the relevant guideline is not followed?

G) Whether the dealership agreement can be terminated on the count of a failed sample obtained for flashpoint if the relevant guidelines/procedure have been violated by the team of BPCL collecting such sample?

H) How many Reconstitutions in North India were done by BPCL after May 2018 under Clauses L5 to L8 of New Guidelines?

1) Has BPCL done any Reconstitution in north India after issuance of May 2018 Guidelines, where show cause notice was issued on Benami Operations prior to the release of guidelines?

J) Whether BPCL can condone old defaults of a dealership against payment of a certain penalty under the present rule position of the BPCL? If yes, how many such defaults stand condoned by the BPCL in north India."

The CPIO vide letter dated 03.08.2023 replied as under:-

"A-The information sought by you pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the Right To Information Act 2005. B-All the dealerships are to be managed/run by the DPSL signatory themselves. C-Part 1-You have not requested for any information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 and you cannot elicit opinion from CPIO. Therefore, no action can be taken by this Office on your query under the said Act.

Appellant: Represented by Shri Pankaj Jamwal-Advocate through video conference Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Gupta - GM, Marketing (Retail), BPCL was present through video conference during hearing.

Both parties reiterated their contentions as noted hereinabove.

Decision:

Examination of the records of the case reveals that some of the queries like query number A, B, C, D, H, I elicit numeric or generic information. PIO's response with respect to these queries are legally flawed and therefore set aside. In the light of the aforementioned facts and discussions, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent present for hearing, viz. Shri Sanjeev Gupta - GM, Marketing (Retail), BPCL to revisit each of the query and ensure that a revised point wise accurate reply furnishing reply containing numeric and generic data about dealership agreements in North India since the enactment and enforcement of new Reconstitution Guidelines 2018, is sent to the Appellant. The Respondent should exercise due caution and ensure that the information disclosed should not contain any data which is expressly barred from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and also ensure that provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act should also be applied to redact any third party information if deemed necessary while sending the revised reply as sought by the Appellant. The point wise revised reply should be sent by the Respondent within four weeks of receipt of this order and a compliance report shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission, within one week thereafter, failing which appropriate non compliance proceedings shall be initiated against the concerned official.