The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the concerned Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) to submit a detailed explanation for the delay in transferring an RTI application concerning ethanol blending in petrol to the concerned oil marketing companies.

Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi passed the direction on September 7, 2026, while disposing of a complaint filed by Manoj K. Sharma against the CPIO, MoPNG.

The RTI application, filed on August 11, 2025, sought information on the government's ethanol-blending programme, including when oil companies started mixing ethanol with petrol, the percentage and volume of ethanol being blended, and whether the quantity varied across petrol pumps and cities.

The applicant also sought details of the criteria and policies governing any variation in ethanol blending, steps taken to educate petrol-pump delivery staff about ethanol content, and the policy regarding disclosure of ethanol quantity at petrol pumps.

Among other queries, Sharma sought documents or relevant links showing whether consumers were informed about how much ethanol they were purchasing along with petrol.

He also sought "scientific, independent credible evidence" on which the blending policy was based, including material concerning the compatibility of ethanol-blended petrol with cars manufactured between 2010 and 2025.

According to the order, the RTI application was subsequently transferred to the concerned oil marketing companies, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) , under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for Points 1 to 6.

For Point 7, the applicant was provided a web link containing the Roadmap for Ethanol Blending in India 2020-25.

The First Appellate Authority had noted that the CPIO's response was furnished on August 27, 2025, and held that it was within the prescribed 30-day period. The FAA consequently disposed of the appeal and advised the applicant to refer to the response available on the RTI portal.

However, the issue before the CIC was not merely whether a response had ultimately been furnished, but whether the application had been transferred to the concerned public authorities within the time prescribed under the RTI Act.

During the CIC hearing, Sharma submitted that the Ministry had failed to transfer the application to the oil marketing companies within the stipulated five-day period and contended that the delayed transfer was illegal.

The Ministry, on the other hand, submitted that it was not the custodian of the information sought under Points 1 to 6 and had therefore transferred those portions of the application to IOCL, BPCL and HPCL under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

When the Commission questioned the respondent about the delay in transferring the application, the Ministry attributed it to the relocation of its office from Shastri Bhavan to Kartavya Bhavan, which caused technical difficulties in moving the computers. It also cited the ongoing Parliament session as a reason for the delay.

The CIC noted that another appeal concerning the same RTI application had already been heard and adjudicated by the Commission on August 31, 2026, in Case No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2025/653165.

Nevertheless, the Commission separately found fault with the handling of the RTI application at the Ministry.

It held that the then incumbent CPIO had not transferred the RTI application to the concerned public authority within the stipulated time limit under the RTI Act, 2005.

Consequently, the CIC directed the concerned CPIO to submit a detailed written explanation for the failure to transfer the application within the prescribed period. The explanation is to be submitted to the Commission both by post and by uploading it on the Commission's online compliance portal within 15 days of receipt of the order.

The Commission accordingly disposed of the complaint.

Case Title: MANOJ K SHARMA v CPIO: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

Tags: