PHAGWARA GAS SERVICE, PHAGWARA; INVALID INDANE DEALER DISTRIBUTION DOCUMENT AGENCY RUNNING FROM LAST 21 YEARS; NO ONE TO CHECK Honourable Sir/ Madam, In response to my RTI application I got a reply from the Public Information officer, Indian oil Corporation Ltd, Marketing Division, Chandigarh. The PIO himself admit that the Distributorship agreement (15 Pages) made by Indian Oil Corporation and Phagwara Gas Service, Industrial Area, Phagwara has not been signed by any authority and there is no seal on the agreement. Though it is valid document and the said Indane dealer is running its agency from the last 21 years i.e. from 30th Sep 1982. Kindly look in to the following point.
Point: The PIO has not sent the actual copy of the distributorship agreement (15 pages) does not contain name of the person signing the agreement on behalf of the public authority; the copy as sent to me has having no signature on every page and has no seal in the agreement. Hence it seems to be fake document. Response: On the basis of available copy of the Agreement in our record, we stnd by the authenticity of the photocopy of the Agreement sent to you. You are welcome to compare/verify the same with the copy available in our records on any working day. 2009/5/30 rajneesh madhok <[email protected]> Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division) PUNJAB STATE OFFICE,, IndianOil Bhawan, Plot No. 3-A, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh-160 019 Tel: 2775510, 2783528 Fax: 2549069 Marketing Division : REGD/AD REF NO. PSO/LPG/RTI DATED: 28.05.2009 Mr. Rajneesh Madhok B-xxx/63, Nehru nagar, St. No. 2, Railway Road, Phagwara-144401 Punjab. Sub:- RTI Appeal with CIC- Rajneesh Madhok This has reference to our copy of complaint to CIC, New Delhi dated nil regarding decision no. 3921/IC(A)/2009, F.No.. CIC/MA/A/2009/000243 dated 27.04.2009 forwarded to us by Supdt Post Office, Kapurthala vide their ref No. L-2/RTI Act/01/2009 dated 12.05.09 and received in my office on 18.05.09. The point wise response is provided as under:- Point: PIO replied in 46 pages in place of 51 page as calculated before CIC for which the order has been issued by CIC. Response: As per our records, the under mentioned reports contain only 46 pages and the same has been provided to you. Item No. of Pages Inspection report dated 12.11.08 6 Distributorship agreement 15 Regular inspection datd 04.10.08 6------ Regular inspection dated 07.08.08 6------ ---= 20 pages Regular inspection dated 28..05.08 8------ LPG Control order 2000 5 Total 46 You are welcome to inspect all the above documents in our office on any date and time of convenience to verify that nothing has been withheld from you. The matter of ur asking for charges per page was disposed of by CIC by directing us to provide the information free of cost. Accordingly the information, which actually comprises 46 pages, had been sent to you. Possibly, there was error in counting the pages initially. However inspection report dated 12.11.08 comprising 6 jpages which were stated to be illegible by you, are being re-sent. Point: The IOCL has not sent the copies to our Q.2. Response: The information desired by you is contained in Section 3 of the Order LPG (Regulation of supply and distribution) order 2000 which has already been provided to you with reference to your Query no. 1(g). Point: The photocopies sent by PIO dated 12.11.08 regarding last inspection report contains 6 pages is hardly visible. One cannot read the content. Page No. 1 to 6. Response: As already stated at Sl. No. 1 above, copies of 6 pages of inspection report dated 12.11.08 are again attached. Point: Copy of MOP & NG order contains five pages last our pages 2,3,4,5 are unconcerned and misleading replies. Sir page numbers 44,45,46 and 47 has been given by me. IOCL has mentioned page NO> 2,3,4,5. Response: The issue raised is not clear. However, based on what can be surmised from it, we will like to clarify that copy of LPG (Regulation of supply and distribution) order, 2000 provided to you was copy downloaded by us from the website http://admis.hp.nic.in/ehimapurti/pdfs/lpg2000.pdf up to schedule II of the order. A published copy of the order has been purchased by us from the market and is forwarded herewith. By comparing what we have sent to you earlier with the contents of the published copy sent now, you will find that nothing of any substance has been withheld from you. The said order is relevant and applicable to the information sought against Q2 of your RTI application. Point: The PIO has not sent the actual copy of the distributorship agreement (15 pages) does not contain name of the person signing the agreement on behalf of the public authority; the copy as sent to me has having no signature on every page and has no seal in the agreement. Hence it seems to be fake document. Response: On the basis of available copy of the Agreement in our record, we stnd by the authenticity of the photocopy of the Agreement sent to you. You are welcome to compare/verify the same with the copy available in our records on any working day. Point: The applicant was forced to file his appeal before the commission and had to suffer a monetary loss of Rs. 10,000/- for attending the hearing at New Delhi. Response: The issue stands disposed by the order of Honourable CIC vide decision No. 3291/IC(A)2009 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2009/000243 dated 27th April, 2009. Made & Signed on 28th day of May, 09 At Chandigarh Sd/- (R K Arora) GM PSO-Cum_PIO, Punjab State Office, Chandigarh CC: The Central Information Commissioner Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 He has attached 6 copies of inspection report. A book The Gas Cylinders Rules, 2004 Regd Office: G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051 RAJNEESH MADHOK, B-XXX/63, NEHRU NAGAR, ST. NO. 2, RAILWAY ROAD, PHAGWARA-144401 (PB) PH: 01824-262569 (o), 268210 (r), 094173-06415 TELE-FAX: 01824-262569, E-MAIL: [email protected] Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel http://in.travel.yahoo.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
