Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
FileNo.CIC/LS/A/2013/001809/SH
RighttoInformationAct2005UnderSection(18)/(19)
Dateofhearing
27thAugust2014
Dateofdecision
27thAugust2014
NameoftheAppellant
ShriBGArunKumar,
No.29,38thCross,IIMain,8thBlock,
Jayanagar,Bangalore560070
NameofthePublic
Authority/Respondent
CentralPublicInformationOfficer,
BharatPetroleumCorporationLtd.,
StateCoordinator'sOfficeKarnataka,DU
PARCTRINITY,7thFloor,17,MGRoad,
Bangalore560001
TheAppellantwasnotpresent.InsteadoneShriM.M.Seshadriwaspresentat
the NIC Studio, Bangalore, to represent him, with an authorization letter from the
Appellantforthepurpose.
OnbehalfoftheRespondents,thefollowingwerepresentinperson:
1. ShriA.P.Verma,CPIO.
2. ShriMadhusudhanRaoV.,CM(RI).
InformationCommissioner
ShriSharatSabharwal
ThismatterpertainstoanRTIapplicationdated25.4.2013filedbytheAppellant,
seekinginformationonsevenpointsregardingadealership. TheCPIOrespondedon
3.5.2013topointsNo.1,2and3.HedeniedtheinformationinresponsetopointsNo.4
and5underSection8(1)(d)oftheRTIAct.WithregardtopointsNo.6and7,hestated
thattheAppellanthadsoughtopinionoftheRespondentsandthisdidnotqualifyas
informationunderSection2(f)oftheRTIAct.NotsatisfiedwiththereplyoftheCPIO,the
AppellantfiledanappealtotheFirstAppellateAuthority.Inhisorderdated3.6.2013,the
FAAupheldtheCPIOsreply,whilealsoadvisingtheAppellanttocontacttheTerritory
Manager,Bangaloreandobtaincopiesofthecorrespondencewithregardtotheputting
upoftheALPGstationatJayanagar@Rs.2/perpage.TheAppellantfiledsecond
appealdated25.6.2013totheCIC,whichwasreceivedbytheCommissionon3.7.2013.
2.
Respondents.TherepresentativeoftheAppellantsubmittedthattheguidelinesprovided
byBPCLforautoLPGstationcommissioning(pointNo.2oftheRTIapplication)arenot
guidelines approved by Directors. The Appellant should be provided the guidelines
approved by Directors. The Respondents submitted that in his RTI application, the
Appellant hadsought information regarding anyindependent guidelines formulated by
BPCL for auto LPG station commissioning and a copy of the guidelines of the
Respondentswasprovidedtohim. WithregardtotheadviceoftheRespondentsto
obtaincopiesofthecorrespondenceconcerningputtingupALPGstationatJayanagar@
Rs.2/perpage,therepresentativeoftheAppellantstatedthattheAppellanthadnot
obtainedthesecopiesbecausehewasnotinformedabouttheexactcorrespondence
availablewiththeRespondentsandthenumberofpagesetc.
3.
TherepresentativeoftheAppellantchallengedthedecisionoftheRespondentsto
denyinformationinresponsetopointsNo.4and5oftheRTIapplication(interoffice
correspondence between BPCL Bangalore, Regional Office, Chennai and BPCL
HeadquartersregardingALPGstationatJayanagarandthelettersentbytheTerritory
Manager,BPCLBangaloretotheirED(Retail)Mumbaisubsequenttotheirmeetingwith
BDA Commissioner on 28.2.2006) under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The
Respondentsreiteratedtheirdecisionconcerningdenialofinformationinresponsetothe
abovepoints.
4.
The representative of the Appellant stated that the Appellant had sought
information and not opinion of the Respondents at points No. 6 and 7 of his RTI
application. TheRespondentsreiteratedthattheAppellanthadsoughttheiropinionin
thesepoints.
5.
On being asked whether there was any court case/ arbitration concerning the
matter,theRespondentsstatedthattheAppellantisBPCLdealeratRetailOutletM/s
AdvaitaatBTMlayoutBangalorevideanagreementdated1.10.2002. Subsequently,a
newsitewasmadeoperationalwiththesamenameandstyleatJayanagar.Itwaslater
on found that the auto LPG site, Jayanagar was in violation of the guidelines and a
terminationprocesswasinitiatedbyservingashowcausesnoticetothedealershipon
15.4.2013. This showcause notice resulted in litigation and an arbitration suit. The
Respondents also handed over their written submissions dated 25.8.2014 during the
proceedings.TherepresentativeoftheAppellantstatedthattheAppellantsrequestfor
informationshouldbedecidedinkeepingwiththeprovisionsoftheRTIActandinthelight
ofthesituationasitprevailedwhentheAppellantfiledhisRTIapplication. Hefurther
submittedthatthesubsequentdevelopmentsbywayofcourtcasesandarbitrationshould
nothaveabearingonadecisioninthematter.
6.
th
25.8.2014oftheRespondentstotheAppellant. Wewillhearthismatteragainon 20
October,2014at10.00a.m throughvideoconferencingtogiveanopportunitytothe
Appellanttomakehissubmissions,ifany,inresponsetothewrittensubmissionsmadeby
the Respondents. The Appellants written submissions, if any, should reach us by
13.10.2014.ThevenueforvideoconferencingfortheAppellantandtheRespondentswill
beasfollows:
FortheAppellantandtheRespondents
NIC,VCStudio,StateCentre,
7thFloor,MiniTower,ViveshwarayaBuilding,
Dr.AmbedkarVeedhi,Bengaluru56000
TheContactOfficerisMr.M.Subramanian,
ScientistC,&ContactNo.08022863218&22863790
7.
Copiesofthisorderbegivenfreeofcosttotheparties.
Sd/
(SharatSabharwal)
InformationCommissioner
Authenticatedtruecopy.Additionalcopiesofordersshallbesuppliedagainstapplication
andpaymentofthechargesprescribedundertheActtotheCPIOofthisCommission.
(VijayBhalla)
DeputyRegistrar