correct, the question remains whether this Commission has the jurisdiction and
authority to question the decision taken by HPCL. My emphatic answer is ‘No’.
Whether or not, the appellant herein was more qualified than Smt. Monica Sharma
for proprietary rights in the gas agency in question had to be decided by HPCL
which it did. The decision taken by the HPCL cannot be questioned before this
Commission. The relief lies elsewhere. Given the fact that Smt. Monica Sharma is
100% proprietor of the said gas agency, information sought by the appellant can
legitimately be said to be third party information, justifying application of section
11(1). The fact that the appellant is the husband of Smt. Monica Sharma does not
alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in
law. I, therefore, hold that CPIO was right in invoking Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.308, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
(Maj. Puneet Dadeech Vs. H.P.C.L)
16 August, 2013