Top News

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Petroleum Planning & Analysis Cell (PPAC) to issue a revised and more complete reply to an RTI application seeking detailed information on petrol production, imports, expenditure, and ethanol blending. The applicant received only partial information at first. A second appeal made by the applicant prompted the Commission step in and order corrective action.

Image used for representation only

The matter relates to an RTI application filed by Raviranjan Dubey, on August 31, 2025. He had asked for detailed, year-wise information about India’s petroleum sector, from 2014-15 onwards .

Dubey wanted to know the total quantity of petrol (motor spirit) purchased, imported and produced in India. He also sought details of India’s annual spending on petrol.

He asked for official rules and policies to ethanol blending, including the percentage of ethanol to be mixed with petrol and copies of relevant government documents.

In addition, the RTI requested data on how much ethanol was purchased and actually blended each year, along with reasons for any differences.

He also asked for an year-wise list of ethanol suppliers to oil marketing companies, including supply volumes and contract details. Similar information was requested for petrol suppliers, as well.

The application also sought details about profits earned from petrol sales, along with information on how these profits were calculated.

Dubey specifically asked for the data in digital formats like Excel or CSV wherever possible.

Image used for representation only

In its reply, the PPAC stated that much of the information to petroleum production, imports, exports, and taxes was already available on its official website.

For ethanol blending, it referred to the National Policy on Biofuels, 2018, and said that this policy document could be accessed on the Ministry’s website. It also mentioned that its monthly report titled “Snapshot of India’s Oil & Gas” contains data on ethanol received and blended.

However, the body said it did not have information on ethanol suppliers. It also refused to share company-wise data on petroleum production and imports, citing confidentiality under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The First Appellate Authority largely supported this response, stating that most of the requested data was already available online or exempt from disclosure. Dubey then filed a second appeal.

The applicant argued before the Commission that he was unable to find the information which the previous response said, was available online. He requested that the data be sent directly to his email in a usable format

In response, the PPAC said that some recent data, especially for 2023-24, was available on its website and that older data could also be shared. It clarified that policy- information was maintained by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, not by the PPAC. The relevant notifications and orders are available online. The body said it would share links to these.

Image used for representation only

After reviewing the case, the Commission found out that only partial information had been provided to the applicant. It directed the PPAC to issue a new reply with clear and complete responses to each query.

For queries to petrol data and profits, the Commission instructed PPAC to send the available information, including historical data, directly to the applicant’s email.

For questions on ethanol blending policies, PPAC was asked to provide specific website links instead of general references.

In the case of ethanol supplier details, the Commission directed the body to transfer the query to the appropriate public authority/ concerned officer that holds the information, instead of simply stating that the data was not available.

For company-wise petrol supplier data, the PPAC was allowed to maintain its refusal, as it falls under exemptions to commercial confidentiality.

The PPAC has been directed to send the revised RTI reply within 15 days of receiving the order. The updated response must follow all the instructions given by the Commission and a compliance report must also be submitted. With these directions, the CIC has disposed of the appeal.

The Commission also identified a procedural lapse. It found that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had failed to include details of the First Appellate Authority in the original reply. This violated an Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in October 2015. The CIC has sought a written explanation within 15 days, from the concerned officer.

Source: Lawbeat