CentralInformationCommission,NewDelhi

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.

We heard the submissions of the representative of the Appellant and the

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.

The Registry is directed to forward a copy of the written submissions dated

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