Appellant sought for copy of Nomination Form E2 and F2 from BPCL - CIC: Legitimate concerns regarding the authenticity of a document executed by her late father; Strongly recommends the furnishing of information sought by the appellant
11 Dec, 2023
O R D E R
FACTS
The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
- The date of execution in the Nomination Form executed by Bharat Suchak in favour of Mr. Rohit Bharat Suchak in Ulhasnagar Gas Service.
- Request a copy of the above Nomination Forms E2 and F2, if possible.
On going through your negative list (copy attached), nowhere it is mentioned that you cannot provide a copy of the said Nomination Forms E2 and F2. Thus I request you to kindly provide a copy.
The PIO vide letter dated 03.08.2021 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 18.01.2022, rejected the First Appeal of the appellant, due to delay in filing first appeal. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing through AC.
Respondent: The respondent Shri Yogesh Pandey, DGM Marketing attended the hearing through AC.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information was wrongly denied to her by the CPIO. The appellant stated that the Territory Manager, Shri Rajwinder Singh, and his Sales Manager, Shri Gaurav Salvi, were aware that Bharat Kumar Mohanlal Suchak was in Breach Candy Hospital. The distributorship interview took place on 24.11.2020, and the Agreement was signed on 01.12.2020, both at the hospital. This raises questions about how Bharat kumar Mohanlal Suchak could have executed and notarized a Nomination Affidavit Form E2 on the same day while in the hospital, he said and added that it seems improbable that the Territory Manager accepted a Form E2 supposedly executed by Bharat kumar Mohanlal Suchak in favour of Rohit Bharat Suchak, knowing that it might not be authentic.
Furthermore, it's important to note that no Magistrate, Judge, or Notary Officer visited the hospital on 01 Dec 2020, and it's unlikely that Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak left his hospital bed to visit a Magistrate/Notary Public for signing and notarizing, as required by BPCL's LPG reconstitution guidelines, the Appellant submitted.
The appellant said he believes that the Annexure E2 document executed by Late Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak is not authentic, and the process for transferring the LPG agency to the nominee is questionable. Given the doubts about the authenticity of this document, the appellant said he believes it's in the public interest to provide Annexure E2. The appellant also insisted that the CPIO should have approached the request with a more open perspective and should have provided Annexure E2.
The appellant requested Annexure E2 to verify its authenticity, as it was the basis for transferring the LPG distributorship to the nominee after Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak's demise. He argued that the document does not fall under any exemptions, and there is a strong public interest in its disclosure, as there are doubts about its validity.
The appellant further argued that the CPIO should have carefully considered and analyzed the facts before denying access to Nomination Annexure E2 and should have provided it. The CPIO had already disclosed crucial information, confirming that Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak had nominated Rohit Bharat Suchak for the LPG Distributorship in Ulhasnagar, he said and contended that the Detailed Guidelines for LPG Distributorship in July 2020, effective from July 1, 2020, is a public document. As a result, exemptions under Section 8(i)(e) and 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act and other sections do not apply since these guidelines are of a generic nature.
The appellant argued that the CPIO's disclosure of the distributor's nomination has effectively removed any secrecy surrounding the matter. There is no further secrecy involved in providing the Nomination Annexure E2 as requested, as the remaining information in the annexures is standard text copied directly from the public document - Detailed Guidelines for LPG Distributorship July 2020.
The appellant asserted that the CPIO and the Coordinator State office (LPG), Maharashtra & Goa, should have considered the request in light of the appellant's explanation and, at the very least, provided a copy of the Nomination Affidavit E2 dated December 1, 2020, as requested.
The appellant emphasized that the Negative List on BPCL's website, which outlines information that should not be disclosed to RTI applicants according to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, does not mention Nomination Annexure E2. Therefore, it does not fall under the exempt category.
The appellant further clarified that Annexure E2 is a document to be executed by the agency owner and submitted to the BPCL territory office. It is a nomination affidavit based on the Reconstitution guidelines of 2020 and is, in fact, a public document (as per page 104 of the guidelines).
The appellant pointed out that there is no third party involved in the Annexure E2 document, which was said to have been executed and notarized by Mr. Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak.
Lastly, the appellant highlighted that they had requested a copy of this document from the CPIO, which was denied under the pretext that the information falls under a fiduciary relationship between BPCL and the LPG Distributor and is personal information from the nominee's perspective, with no relevance to public activity or interest.
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent stated that the requested information could not be disclosed under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The respondent also explained that this was due to the information being shared with the Corporation by the distributor within a fiduciary relationship, its classification as personal information of the nominee, and its lack of relevance to a larger public interest. The respondent also pointed out that the RTI applicant neither held the status of a nominee nor had signed the Distributorship Agreement.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission notes that the appellant has raised legitimate concerns regarding the authenticity of a document, Annexure E2, executed by her late father, Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak. The said document is crucial for the reconstitution of an LPG distributorship associated with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The appellant argues that this document's authenticity is questionable, given the circumstances surrounding its execution.
The Commission also notes that the appellant is the daughter and heir of the late Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak. Therefore, the Commission strongly recommends the furnishing of information sought by the appellant, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Further, the Commission observes that the distributorship interview and the signing of the Agreement took place while Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak was admitted in Breach Candy Hospital. This naturally raises questions about how the nominee, Rohit Bharat Suchak, could have executed and notarized Annexure E2 on the same day, given the hospitalization of Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak. Moreover, the Commission notes that there is no evidence to suggest that a Magistrate, Judge, or Notary Officer visited the hospital on 01.12.2020, which is when the notarization is claimed to have occurred. This is a critical aspect, as BPCL's LPG reconstitution guidelines require such notarization. The Commission also observes that the doubt about the authenticity of Annexure E2, sharing this document is in the larger public interest. The document played a pivotal role in transferring the LPG distributorship to the nominee after the demise of Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak. Thus, ensuring the authenticity of the document is of public concern.
Furthermore, the Commission observes that the appellant, as the daughter and heir of the late Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak, has been unwittingly included in the indemnity clause of Annexure E2, which was supposedly executed by her late father. This clause effectively makes her a party to the document. Consequently, she is not considered as third party, and she is entitled to request and receive a copy of the same.
In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO, BPCL to re-examine the RTI application and furnish correct and complete information to the Appellant, free of cost, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Sharmila Bharatkumar Suchak v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/117952 –UM; Date of Decision: 02.11.2023