CIC Directs Explanation: Petroleum Ministry RTI Delay Over Transfer

• The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) CPIO to explain a delay in transferring an RTI application.
• The RTI, filed on August 11, 2025, sought details on ethanol blending in petrol, including percentages, variations, and consumer information.
• Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi found that the application was not transferred to relevant oil companies within the five-day statutory period under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
• The MoPNG cited office relocation and an ongoing Parliament session as reasons for the delay, which the CIC did not accept as valid.
• This ruling emphasizes the CIC's strict enforcement of RTI Act timelines, holding CPIOs accountable for procedural compliance.

The Commission's directive makes it clear that public authorities cannot easily dismiss their obligations under the RTI Act, even when facing internal logistical challenges.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has issued a significant directive to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), demanding a detailed explanation for a delay in transferring an RTI application. This **CIC directs explanation Petroleum Ministry RTI delay** order, issued by Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi on September 7, 2026, stems from a complaint filed by Manoj K. Sharma regarding information on ethanol blending in petrol.

The core of the Commission's concern was not merely whether a response was eventually provided, but rather the timely adherence to statutory requirements for forwarding the request to the appropriate public authorities. The ruling emphasizes the strict enforcement of the **RTI Act 2005 Section 6(3) transfer** provisions, which dictate specific timelines for such actions. The MoPNG's CPIO is now tasked with justifying why the application was not transferred within the prescribed period, highlighting the Commission's focus on procedural compliance.

Manoj K. Sharma's original RTI application, submitted on August 11, 2025, sought comprehensive details concerning the government's ethanol-blending initiative. The queries included when oil companies commenced mixing ethanol with petrol, the specific percentages and volumes of ethanol being blended, and whether these quantities varied across different petrol pumps and cities. Sharma also requested information on the policies governing any such variations, measures taken to educate petrol-pump staff about ethanol content, and the policy regarding the disclosure of ethanol quantity at the point of sale.

Further, the applicant sought documentation or relevant links to confirm if consumers were informed about the amount of ethanol in their petrol purchases. A crucial part of the request also involved seeking "scientific, independent credible evidence" underpinning the blending policy, specifically material related to the compatibility of ethanol-blended petrol with vehicles manufactured between 2010 and 2025. While the MoPNG subsequently transferred points 1 through 6 of the application to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, and provided a web link to the "Roadmap for Ethanol Blending in India 2020-25" for point 7, the timing of this transfer became the central point of contention before the **Central Information Commission India**.

During the hearing, the complainant, Manoj K. Sharma, asserted that the Ministry had failed to transfer the application to the relevant oil marketing companies within the stipulated five-day period, rendering the delayed transfer illegal. The Ministry, in its defense, contended that it was not the custodian of the information sought in points 1 to 6, which necessitated the transfer. When pressed by the Commission regarding the delay, the MoPNG attributed it to the relocation of its office from Shastri Bhavan to Kartavya Bhavan, citing technical difficulties with computer systems as a consequence. Additionally, an ongoing Parliament session was presented as another reason for the delay.

However, the **Central Information Commission India** was not swayed by these explanations. The Commission explicitly found fault with the Ministry's handling of the RTI application, determining that the then incumbent CPIO had not transferred the request to the concerned public authorities within the time limit mandated by the RTI Act, 2005. This finding underscores the Commission's unwavering expectation of **CPIO transfer timeline compliance**, irrespective of internal administrative challenges. It was also noted that another appeal concerning the same RTI application had already been adjudicated by the Commission on August 31, 2026, under Case No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2025/653165.

This **Khushwant Singh Sethi CIC order** serves as a critical reminder to all public authorities regarding their obligations under the Right to Information Act. The Commission's directive makes it clear that excuses such as office relocation or parliamentary sessions are unlikely to be accepted as valid justifications for failing to adhere to the strict timelines for transferring RTI applications, particularly under Section 6(3). This ruling reinforces the principle that the onus is on the CPIO to ensure prompt action, even when the requested information is held by another entity.

The outcome of this case has significant implications for **CPIO transfer timeline compliance** across government departments. It signals that the CIC will rigorously scrutinize delays and hold CPIOs accountable, potentially exposing them to adverse orders. For legal practitioners, this precedent offers a strong basis to challenge instances of delayed information disclosure, particularly in cases involving the **Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas RTI** requests or similar situations where applications are transferred to other public bodies. The requirement for a detailed explanation from the CPIO highlights the Commission's intent to understand and rectify systemic issues leading to such delays in **ethanol blending information disclosure** and other public interest matters.

This ruling emphasizes the Central Information Commission's strict enforcement of RTI Act timelines for application transfers, particularly under Section 6(3). Compliance officers and CPIOs in public authorities must ensure timely transfer of RTI requests, as excuses like office relocation or parliamentary sessions may not be accepted, exposing them to CIC scrutiny and potential adverse orders. Lawyers can leverage this precedent to challenge delays in information disclosure.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk