Central Information Commission
Samvidhan Raturi vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 8 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
Complaint No. CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/114057
SAMVIDHAN RATURI ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: IOCL, NOIDA ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.01.2026
Date of Interim Decision : 08.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22-03-2024
CPIO replied on : 02-04-2024
First appeal filed on : -
First Appellate Authority's : -
order
Complaint dated : 01.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22-03-2024 seeking the following information:
"प्राथी को ननम्ननिखित नबन्िु ओ पर सूचना प्रेनित करने नक कृपा करे ।
1. यह नक RO डीिरनिप खित मध्य KM STONE NO.15 & 70 SH-9 ((िक्ष्मञ्झुिा
-धूमाकोट) नििा पौडी गडवाि, उत्तरािंड द्वारा इं नडयन ऑइि कापोरे िन निनमटे ड के नवज्ञापन नक नवज्ञनपनत नतनथ प्रेनित करने नक कृपा करे ।
CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/114057 Page 1
2. यह नक उक्त निखित नवज्ञापन में आए सभी आवेिनो नक सूची प्रेनित करने नक कृपा करे ।
3. यह नक उक्त निखित नवज्ञापन के संबंध में चयननत आवेिक नक सूची प्रेनित करने नक कृपा करे ।
4. यह नक उक्त निखित नवज्ञापन के संबंध में पेटरोि पम्प िगाने हे तु चयननत आवेिक (यनि कोई हो तो) उसके द्वारा िाखिि िस्तावेिो नक सम्पूणग पतरवािी नक प्रनत व ओपचाररकताए प्रेनित करने नक कृपा करे ।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02-04-2024 stating as under:
"कृपया सूचना का अनधकार अनधननयम 2005 के अंतगगत इं नडयन ऑयि कापोरे िन निनमटे ड, नडवीिनि ऑनिस, िे हरािू न को संबोनधत अपने आवेिन निनां क 22.03.2024 का संिभग िें िो नक हमारे कायाग िय में निनां क 02.04.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ है निसके साथ आरटीआई िुल्क के रूप में electronic INDIAN POSTAL ORDER (eIPO) संख्या 481703212411453 संिग्न नकया गया है िो नक सूचना के अनधकार अनधननयम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं है । सूचना के अनधकार (िुल्क और िागत का नवननयमन) ननयम, 2005 के िंड 3 के अनुसार, सूचना मां गने के निए ननधाग ररत िुल्क 10/- रूपये है , निसका भुगतान उनचत रसीि के साथ नकि या नडमां ड डर ाफ्ट या बैंकसग चैक या भारतीय पोस्टि ऑडग र के माध्यम से (िो नक सावगिननक प्रानधकरण के िेिा अनधकारी को िे य होना चानहए) से नकया िा सकता है निसकी िानकारी आपको हमारे पूवग पत्र निनां क 14.03.2024 को भी िी गयी थी। (प्रनत संिग्न है ।) चूंनक आपके द्वारा संिग्न नकए गए आरटीआई िुल्क 10/- रुपये मूल्य के eIPO संख्या 481703212411453 िो नक सूचना के अनधकार अनधननयम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं है । इसके अनतररक्त eIPO के माध्यम से आरटीआई िुल्क िमा करने पर हमारे कायाग िय में कोई अनधसूचना प्राप्त नहीं होती हैं इसके अिावा हमारे कायाग िय द्वारा IPO को िमा कराने का कोई प्रावधान नहीं है , इसनिए हम आपके आवेिन पर नवचार करने में असमथग हैं ।
उपरोक्त को ध्यान में रिते हुए आपका आवेिन उक्त eIPO के साथ इस अनुरोध के साथ वापस नकया िा रहा है नक कृपया आवेिन के साथ संिग्न नडमां ड डर ाफ्ट या बैंकसग चैक या भारतीय पोस्टि ऑडग र इं नडयन ऑयि कॉपोरे िन निनमटे ड के नाम पर नोएडा में िे य अपेनित िुल्क के साथ पुनः भेिने की कृपा करें तानक हम आगे नक कायगवाही कर सकने में समथग हो सकें।"
CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/114057 Page 2
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Alok Srivastav, GM & CPIO, attended the hearing in person.
4. The Respondent submitted that the complainant had submitted an e-stamp with his RTI Application initially and since it is not prescribed mode of fee payment, the same was returned. Thereafter, the complainant submitted an e-IPO bearing number 481703212411453.
5. Written submission dated 06.01.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record and relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:
"2. The RTI fee of Rs. 10/- attached with the said RTI application was in the form of e-stamp which is not a prescribed mode of fee payment, hence it was returned on 14.03.2024 with a request to submit fee as per laid down provisions provided in the RTI Act 2025. A copy of the same is attached herewith as Annexure-1.
3. Thereafter, the applicant filed his another application dated 22.03.2024 with an e-IPO (No. 481703212411453). Since the fee so paid by the appellant through e-IPO could not be encashed by the respondent-
Corporation transferred into the account of the respondent-Corporation (Annexure-2), hence the reply was accordingly submitted to the appellant through the letter dated 02.04.2024. A copy of the same is attached herewith as Annexure-3.
4. It is also humbly submitted that to resolve this issue, answering respondent proactively contacted the Senior Post Master, Noida Sector-19, CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/114057 Page 3 vide letter dated 07.08.2024 followed by reminder dated 13.09.2024, seeking guidance on how to encash/realize the e-IPO submitted by the applicant but did not avail any response. A copy each of the said letters are annexed herewith and collectively marked as Annexure-4"
6. The Commission queried the respondent on why he could not accept the e- IPO. To this the respondent submitted that he has contacted the Senior Post Master, Noida Sector, seeking guidance and how to encash/realize the e-IPO submitted by the complainant, but, he did not get any response from the aforesaid Post Master.
7. After hearing the respondent, the Commission opined that the complainant has submitted RTI fee through valid mode of payment i.e., e-IPO and it was the respondent's failure to accept/verify the said e-IPO at their end.
Interim 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 complainant has filed his RTI Application along with e-IPO bearing number 481703212411453. The Commission finds that e-IPO is a valid mode of paying RTI fee and the respondent's initial reply stating that "e-IPO is not in compliance with provisions of the RTI Act and hence the complainant's RTI Application was not considered" is incorrect. Further, the respondent's plea during the hearing & in written submission dated 06.01.2026, that he could not encash/realize the e-IPO despite writing letters dated 07.08.2024 & 13.09.2024 to Senior Post Master, Noida Sector, is found to be contradictory from his stand in initial reply dated 02.04.2024 and meritless. Also, the Commission finds that the aforesaid letters were written to the Senior Post Master, Noida Sector after expiry of 03 months from the date of receipt of RTI Application of the Complainant. In view of the above, the Commission finds that the respondent has refused to accept the RTI Application of the complainant despite filing the same with e-IPO.
CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/114057 Page 4
9. Therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to the respondent Mr. Alok Srivastav, GM & CPIO, IOCL. The respondent shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons. The respondent is directed to submit detailed written explanation - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-
paper-compliance/add within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The registry of this bench is directed to list this matter in the first week of March, 2026 after serving Show-Cause notice to the respondent. Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and reserved for further orders.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 08.01.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंिीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), U P State Office-II, E-8, Sector-I, Noida-201301.
2. The FAA, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), U P State Office-II, E-8, Sector-I, Noida-201301.
CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/114057 Page 5 3. Shri SAMVIDHAN RATURI CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/114057 Page 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)