Jump to content
  • 0

Indian oil corporation rti


code88

Question

code88

I asked the following

 

Q (1) Provide the certified copy of the dealership agreement executed between xxxxx gas agency and Indian oil corporation for distribution of Indane LPG cylinders, including terms and conditions as well as facilities and services required to be provided by the dealer to the consumers in his area of operation.

Reply : Copy of agreement with the above distributer cannot be provided since the agreement includes provisions pertaining to commercial confidence, discloser of which would harm the competitive position of a third party under section 8 (1) (d) . The citizen charter giving details of services and facilities to customer is available in www.indane.co.in

 

Q (2) Delivery slips

Reply: Document given but not at all clear and barely readable.

 

Q (3) Certified copy of  document/list showing the area of operations of the xxxx dealer as of now.

Reply: Area of operation is mentioned in the distributor agreement which cannot be provided since the reason stated in reply 1.

 

Reply to Question 4 is unanswered and not even mentioned.

 

What's all your suggestions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1
Prasad GLN

First Appeal dt.9th Jun, 2020 under RTI Act

Before : First Appellate Authority, Indian Oil Corporation, ....

Against: CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation.

Appellant:  .........................

Grounds for appeal:  CPIO has not applied his mind properly and evaded information.

1.The agreement with such dealer is uniform and not exclusive between that dealer and IOC alone.  When it is uniform format, providing such format in no way harms such competitive position.  The agreement between a Central GOvt PSU and a public utility dealer is never a document of commercial confidence as there is no economical or intellectual property secrets or rights.   This is uniform format and many oil companies since enactment provided such format .  CPIO rejecting without justification is not proper and legal.

2.The delivery slips are enclosed for information of FAA.   There is no clarity and CPIO may be advised to provide such slips that are clear and legible.

3.Area of operation is not linked to agreement.  Every Central Govt. PSU must release advertisement and specify in notification about the jurisdiction of the appointed dealer and this jurisdiction is in no way connected to agreement at any stretch of imagination.   It appears that CPIO is bent upon denying information and invented such absurd excuse to deny information.  There should be clear demarkation of jurisdiction and public must know the jurisdiction of any dealer.

4.There is no response to Q4..CPIO must either provide the information or deny information stating such exemption in Sec. 8 (1) with justification.  CPIO has neither provided information nor denied information and remained silent and this is treated as deliberate, malafide and deemed denial.

Prayer: Appellant prays for directions to CPIO for providing the information as expeditiously as possible free of cost.

 

Appellant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Most Solved

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      3
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      1
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      10
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      7
    3. 3
      Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
      4
    4. 4
      subbu23
      subbu23
      2
    5. 5
      Priya De
      Priya De
      2
  • Our picks

    • Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof
      Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that seeking citizenship proof in case of demand of sensitive information is justified but seeking a signed copy of the application does not seem appropriate as the online portal does not mandate uploading of signatures.
       
      Sinha was hearing the plea of an Odisha-based RTI applicant who had sought from the Army information regarding implementation of rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all defence establishments.
      The Army did not provide any information to the applicant, the CIC noted. Akhand approached the Commission with a complaint that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Army has demanded a signed copy of his online RTI application as well as identity proof before providing him the records.
      “In this regard, it may be noted that as far as CPIO’s request for citizenship proof is concerned, the same is not questioned as Commission in its prior decision(s) has held the view that Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing as there may be instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, and for such reasons it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof,” Sinha noted.
      Originally posted here!
       
      • 1

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to  their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so.

      To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site).

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years.

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf
      Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf
      CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf
      Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf
      To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf
      Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf
      From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf
      thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
      • 4

        Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy