W.P.No.240 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.240 of 2024 And W.M.P.No.291 of 2024 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Southern Regional Office, 1, Ranganathan Gardens, Off 11th Main Road, P.B 1212 & 1213, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 Rep. by V.R.Harikishen ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067. 2.S.R.Mohan ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 15.06.2023 passed in Second Appeal No.CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/100033 and quash the same. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.240 of 2024 For Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Srinivasan Standing Counsel For Respondents : R1 – No Appearance Ms.S.S.Jothivani for R2 O R D E R The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 15.06.2023 passed in Second Appeal No.CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/100033 and quash the same. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is one of the premier oil marketing companies in the country and is involved in the process of exploration, refining and marketing of various ranges of essential petroleum products like motor spirit, high speed diesel, lubes, liquefied petroleum gas, aviation turbine fuel etc., in the country through a well established distribution network. The second respondent is the dealer appointed by the petitioner to run the retail outlet located in S.No.111/1A, Belathur Village, Bagalur – Mallur Road, Krishnagiri District. The second respondent made application dated 29.09.2021 to the Chief Public Information Officer of the petitioner company and sought for a detailed 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.240 of 2024 report on the budget allocated, expenses incurred in commissioning the retail outlet which is being operated by the second respondent. The said application was rejected by an order dated 02.11.2021. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that challenging the order dated 02.11.2021, the second respondent filed appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act before the appellate authority constituted by the petitioner company under the RTI Act and the said appeal was also rejected on 13.12.2021 and challenging the same, the second respondent filed second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission/ first respondent. The first respondent allowed the second appeal filed by the second respondent on 15.06.2023 and directed the petitioner to furnish the information sought for by the second respondent. Upon receipt of the order dated 15.06.2023, the petitioner furnished the information sought for by the second respondent, however, aggrieved by the direction to comply with the mandate of Section 4(1)(b)(xi) of the RTI Act in as mush as the same is in the nature of commercial confidence and disclosing it on the petitioner’s web portal would harm the petitioner’s commercial interests and also the competitive interests of its dealers, the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.240 of 2024 petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent received the information sought for from the petitioner. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Perusal of Section 4(1)(b)(xi) of the RTI Act makes it clear that every public authority shall publish the budget allocated to each of its agency for the purpose of appointing PIO and Appellate authority, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made, however, the same is not applicable to the petitioner since disclosure of the said information in the petitioner’s web portal will severely impact the petitioner’s position in the domestic market, however, the first respondent inadvertently directed the petitioner to furnish the details sought for by the second respondent. The petitioner has furnished the information sought for by the second respondent and the same is not disputed by the second respondent. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.240 of 2024 order. 7.The writ petition is allowed. The order of the first respondent dated 15.06.2023 passed in Second Appeal No.CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/ 100033 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.06.2026 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To 1.Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.240 of 2024 M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri W.P.No.240 of 2024 And W.M.P.No.291 of 2024 12.06.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.240 of 2024 7/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis