New Delhi, March 16 The Central Information Commission has directed Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to disclose the action taken on a complaint alleging the black marketing of domestic LPG cylinders, after the PSU refused to share the details citing "commercially sensitive information".
The Central Information Commission (CIC) passed the direction while hearing a Right to Information (RTI) application seeking details of the action taken on a complaint against a Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) distributor in Mohali, Punjab, accused of selling domestic LPG cylinders in the black market.
In the RTI application, the appellant asked the public sector undertaking (PSU) to provide a "detailed copy of the action taken report (ATR) and applicable guidelines as highlighted in your attached letter in response to my complaint and subsequent appeal on black marketing of domestic LPG cylinders" by a BPCL distributor in Mohali.
Responding to the query, BPCL said that the applicable guidelines were available online, and added that action had been taken in accordance with them.
However, the company refused to share the action taken report.
In BPCL's reply, the central public information officer (CPIO) said, "BPCL is a commercial organization operating in a competitive environment where other PSUs and private players are operating. Sharing a copy of the action taken report does not involve a larger public interest, and this is our commercially sensitive information. Therefore, the information is denied under Clause 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005."
During the hearing, the appellant, Ankur Suri, argued that despite filing a complaint regarding the alleged black marketing of LPG cylinders, he was not informed about the outcome.
The CIC questioned the respondent as to why the outcome of the complaint had not been shared with the applicant, to which the BPCL representative failed to provide a satisfactory explanation.
After examining the case, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi observed that the response given by the respondent was not appropriate.
The CIC also directed BPCL to issue a revised reply clearly stating the actual action taken on the complaint, including whether any fine was imposed on the erring dealer, if the dealership was cancelled, or a warning was issued.