SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 8354

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
RAJESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation – Respondent
CIC/PAESO/A/2025/115497



##PAGE1##

के ኚ᭾ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई नि्ቤी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/PAESO/A/2025/115497

Rajesh Kumar .….अपीलक

VERSUS

बनाम

CPIO : Petroleum and Explosive

Safety Organisation, Formerly- ….्ቚनर्वािीगण /RESPONDENT

Department of Explosives, Office of

Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives,

RTI Cell, A-Wing, IInd Floor,

Kendralaya, 63/4, Sanjay Place,

Agra-282002

Date of Hearing : 06-07-2026

Date of Decision : 06-07-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 24-03-2025

CPIO replied on : 30-04-2025

First appeal filed on : 25-04-2025

First Appellate Authority’s order : 06-05-2025

2 nd Appeal dated : 15-05-2025

CIC/PAESO/A/2025/115497 Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

##PAGE2##

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24-03-2025 seeking the

following information:

“1-Please provide me very clear and complete information for not

cancelling the Explosive License No P-39962 issued in favor of IOCL

for a premises on which IOCL does not have rightful legal possession

as accepted by IOCL in its various letters (documentary evidences

already submitted) and as mandated by RULE 152 of Petroleum

Rules 2002 and I am joint owner of the subject premises as per Court

order dated 30/08/1996 and DECREE issued

thereunder(documentary evidences already submitted) and

accepted by Dealer without my permission.

2- Please provide me very clear and complete information for not

taking any action against IOCL for submitting wrong DECELARATION

for the said license.

3- Please provide me very clear and complete information about the

role of Licensing authority and Explosive Deptt for misleading the

subject matter about the lease deed which has already been

extinguished by Competent Court of Law and it was never in favor

of IOCL.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30-04-2025 stating as

under:

“कृपया उपरोक्त विषयक अपने आरटीआई आिेदन ददनाांक 24/03/2025

23/04/2025

जोककइसकायाालयमेंददनाकां को्ቚाप्तहुआकासांदर्ा्ቇहण

करनेकाकष्टकरें।

CIC/PAESO/A/2025/115497 Page 2 of 5

2 / 6

##PAGE3##

उक्तके सांबांधआपकोसूचितककयाजाताहैककआपके द्िाराएकही

-

अनु्ሺप्प्तविशेषके सांबांधमेंबारबारजानकारी्ቚाप्तकरनेहेतुआिेदन

ककयाजारहाहैप्जससेइसकायाालयके कीमतीसमयएिांसांसाधनोंका

अपव्ययहोरहाहै।अतःआपकोसलाहदीजातीहैककआपपूिासूिनादेकर

इसकायाालयमेंउपप्थितहोकरसांबांचधतप्ቔािलीकाअिलोकनकरएक

ही बार में समथत िाांछित जानकारी ्ቚाप्त कर सकते हैं।”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25-04-2025.

The FAA vide its order dated 06-05-2025, held as under:

“PIO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATIONS

AND PENAL ACTION NEED TO BE TAKEN”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission

with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Sakhya, Deputy Controller of Explosives, attended

the hearing through video conference.

5. The Respondent submitted, that the appellant sought information

regarding not cancelling the Explosive License No P-39962, issued in favor of

IOCL etc. The respondent submitted, that the appellant sought the same

information multiple times, via multiple RTI applications and the information

was already provided to him. Further, an opportunity of inspection was offered

CIC/PAESO/A/2025/115497 Page 3 of 5

3 / 6

##PAGE4##

to him vide letter dated 30.04.2025 to view the relevant records, and obtain all

the information he desires in one sitting.

6. The Commission queried the respondent, as to whether the appellant has

availed the opportunity of inspection. To this, the respondent submitted, that

he has not availed the opportunity of inspection.

7. Written submission dated 03.07.2026, filed by the respondent is taken on

record.

Decision:

8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the

case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the

Commission has already heard similar RTI applications filed by the instant

appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top