IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28153 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.K. REGHU KUMAR, S/O. LAGE KUTTY, AGED 46 YEARS, ADVOCATE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, LPG BOTTLING PLANT, P.B. NO 6, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING CORPORATE), & CPIO, BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 & 6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI -01. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, BPCL,1, RANGANATHAN GARDEN, OFF.11TH MAIN ROAD, P.B. NO. 1212 & 1213, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI. 4. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 2ND FLOOR, AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI 110 066. R1 & R3 BY ADVS.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.V.J.ANAND. R2 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 28153 of 2009 - L ---------------------------------------- Dated 4th November, 2009 Judgment The petitioner filed an application before the State Public Information Officer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Southern Region, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding applications submitted for appointment as LPG distributor at Ezhukon in Kollam district in the scheduled caste quota. The said application was rejected. The appeal therefrom was rejected by the first appellate authority. The petitioner thereupon filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission. By Ext. P12 order passed on 22.7.2009 Central Information Commission directed the Chief Public Information Officer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to allow inspection of documents in respect of award of dealership submitted by the candidates. The operative portion of Ext.P12 reads as follows: “4. In view of perceived corruption in appointment of LPG dealership, it is desirable to put in all the relevant documents in public domain so that the parties W.P.(C) No.28153/2009 2 themselves can ascertain that there is fair competition and appointment of LPG dealership. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to allow inspection of the documents in respect of award of dealership submitted by the candidates. Both the parties should mutually decide the convenient date and time for inspection of the documents within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision. In so far as the alleged corrupt practices in appointment of dealership is concerned, the appellant is advised to submit the complaint to the Vigilance Officer, who should investigate the matter and take appropriate action in the matter.” 2. The petitioner thereupon sent Ext.P13 letter dated 16.8.2009 requesting the second respondent to fix a convenient date and time to enable him to inspect the documents. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Central Information Commissioner in Ext.P12, the second respondent sent Ext.P14 letter dated 28.8.2009 to the petitioner informing him that he may contact the Regional LPG Manager, South, and fix up a convenient date and time for inspection of the records. The address of the Regional LPG Manager, South was also furnished in the said letter. Notwithstanding the said letter, the petitioner sent another Ext.P15 letter dated 8.9.2009 requesting the third respondent to fix the date and time for inspection of the documents. This writ petition was thereafter W.P.(C) No.28153/2009 3 filed contending that the directions issued by the Central Information Commission has not been complied with. 2. Along with I.A.No.12978 of 2009 the petitioner has produced copy of letter dated 29.9.2009 sent by the Regional LPG Manager, South informing the petitioner that the documents can be inspected in the office of the Territory Manager at Thiruvananthapuram. The address of the Territory Manager was also furnished. The petitioner was also informed that in case copies of documents are required (other than financial details and details of third party), the same will be provided on payment of Rs.2/- per page. 4. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited submits that the Corporation had sent Ext.P14 letter to the petitioner informing him of the date and time for inspection of the records at Chennai and later, he was permitted to inspect the records at Thiruvananthapuram in order to cause least inconvenience to him. Ext.P16 letter is dated 29.9.2009 and it was sent by registered post acknowledgement due. The petitioner has not in the writ petition as amended set out the W.P.(C) No.28153/2009 4 date on which he received the original of Ext.P16 letter. This writ petition was filed on 5.10.2009. As the petitioner has not pleaded or proved that Ext.P16 letter was received by him only after this writ petition was filed, I am proceeding on the basis that it was received by him even before this writ petition was filed. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have gone over to Thiruvananthapuram to inspect the records instead of moving this Court complaining that the respondents have not complied with Ext.P12 order. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the observation that it will be open to the petitioner to go over to the office of the Territory Manager as stated in Ext.P16 letter to inspect the documents and to apply for copies of documents on the terms set out in Ext.P16. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa