O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

1. Please furnish Lakshmi Service Station at Kooteripattu managed by Dealer Natarajan is Do Do(i,e Company Owned Dealer Operated Outlet) or Do Do (Dealer Owned Dealer Operated Outlet)

2. Please furnish attested copy of dealership agreement executed between IOCL and the dealer Mr. Natarajan from 1989 to till date

3. Please furnish, policy related to DoDo. Even though there is a valid lease agreement for 10 years, and the Do Do dealership is terminated, after taking the underground tanks, delivery pumps, whether site will be handed over to the land owner?

4. In Page no.12 of dealership agreement executed between IOCL and Lakshmi Service Station, it’s mentioned, all disputes related to dealership agreement should be referred to IOCL's arbitrator. In my case, Arbitrator and High Court issued judgment in my favor and asked me to submit retail outlet restoration requisition application to IOCL. But, IOCL didn’t consider Arbitration judgment and denied my restoration application. In Supreme court judgment, at para-34, Honorable Supreme Court Judge mentioned, “Arbitration clause 69 (c) empowers the Arbitrator to pass order in the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitrator so also the Single Judge while upholding the award considered it proper to grant liberty to the respondent to file a representation to the IOC for reconsideration of his case for restoration of his dealership”. But, IOCL overruled Arbitration Order and IOCL issued dealership termination 4 / 12 4 / 12 4 / 14 letter. Please furnish, the reasons for denying my restoration application, which is contrary to the dealership agreement

5. Arbitration order was never challenged by IOCL in High Court, High Court Division Bench and Supreme Court. IOCL termination letter is only challenged in Supreme Court, Given all the circumstances of clear Arbitration Verdict in my favour(which is as per the Dealership Agreement) , Please furnish, whether my outlet Lakshmi Service Station, qualify under retail outlet restoration policy circular No.: 264/03/2018 reference RO/6002 Dt

22/03/2018 and 264(A)-03/2019 Dt 08/03/2019.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24-02-2020 had denied the information sought at point no. 04 under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 and provided information at point nos. 01, 02, 03 and 05 of the RTI application. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 28-02-2020 on ground provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 07-05-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Athavan Rajendran, GM (Retail/ Sales)/ APIO, attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 27.01.2020. He further submitted that his dealership has been terminated by the respondent and that he has not signed any Company owned dealer operated (CODO) agreement with the IOCL.

5. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide their letter dated 24.02.2020, they have furnished a point wise reply to the appellant. He further submitted that Dealership of M/s Lakshmi Service Station at Kooteripattu was terminated under Marketing Discipline Guidelines for Violation of Rules. The Retail Outlet was Dealer Owned Dealer Operated (DODO) till 13.03.2002 and from 14.03.2002 onwards it was operated as Company