Central Information Commission
Shanmukh Bachu vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 13 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/PAESO/C/2024/112675
Shanmukh Bachu ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Petroleum and Explosives
Safety Organisation, E-7/77,
Lala Lajpat Rai Society, Arera
Colony, Bhopal - 462016 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.11.2025
Date of Decision : 12.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 26.02.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 31.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.02.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"I, Advocate Shanmukh Bachu, R/o Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh had issued notice dated 06/05/2023 regarding cancellation of No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted for the development of the proposed new retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Indore, Madhya Page 1 of 5 Pradesh at land bearing survey no. 91/1 village Sagrana Dist. Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh in blatant violation of statutory rules and regulations.
That Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur vide office Memo dated 23/05/23 (copy enclosed), copy whereof also adressed to me, requested the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to forward action taken report to his office at the earliest.
In the above view of the matter, kindly furnish the following information, in the interest of transparency & probity, under the Right to Information Act:
1. Details of the action taken by Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation on the aforesaid notice dated notice dated 06/05/2023.
2. Copy of report forwarded to Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur by Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh as per aforesaid office Memo dated 23/05/23.
3. Copy of aforesaid notice dated 06/05/2023 with inward entry marked on the said notice by Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation."
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.03.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Kanak Singh Meena, CPIO-cum-Deputy Controller of Explosives, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
Page 2 of 56. The Respondent submitted that first reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Complainant on 13.04.2024 through online mode, stating as under:
"The documents attached at the time of filing RTI Request are not accessible. The same document may please be uploaded to process your RTI Request. Your request regarding cancellation of NOC is to be processed by the Collector, Neemuch as NOC under reference is granted by the District Magistrate/ District Collector, under the provisions of Petroleum Rules, 2002."
7. While explaining the delay that has occurred in providing the above reply, the Respondent submitted that due to shortage of staff, reply to the RTI Application could not be provided to the Complainant within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act and further tendered his unconditional apology for the same. He added that the documents attached at the time of filing RTI Application were not accessible, the Complaint was requested to upload the same, but he failed to do so. However, his request regarding cancellation of NOC can be processed by the Collector, Neemuch, as NOC under reference was granted by the District Magistrate/ District Collector, under the provisions of Petroleum Rules, 2002. Therefore, with respect to information sought in the RTI Application, no record is available in the office of Joint Chief Controller of Explosives.
8. A written submission has been received from Shri Kanak Singh Meena, CPIO-cum-Deputy Controller of Explosives, vide letter dated 03.11.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"
S. No RTI Applicant Points CPIO Bhopal Reply
1. Details of the action taken by PESO on the No records available in notice dated 06.05.2023 O/o Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Bhopal.
2. Copy of report forwarded to Joint Chief No records available in Controller of Explosives, Nagpur by Joint O/o Joint Chief Controller Chief Controller of Explosives, Bhopal as per of Explosives, Bhopal. aforesaid office Memo dated 23.05.2023.
3. Copy of aforesaid notice dated 06.05.2023 No records available in Page 3 of 5 with inward entry marked on the said O/o Joint Chief Controller notice by PESO of Explosives, Bhopal.
However, as per office online record, the following information has been available online w.r.t the M/s HPCL retail outlet License no:
P/CB/MP/14/10086(P528248) situated at Survey No. 91/1, on Lebad Jaipur Road, Village/Town: SAGARANA, District: NEEMUCH, State: Madhya Pradesh, PIN: 458441. For your perusal please find attached the following documents. I. Inspection report letter dated 09.05.2024 is enclosed as Annexure-2. II. Interim suspension letter dated 13.05.2024 is enclosed as Annexure-3. III. Interim suspension order dated 13.05.2024 is enclosed as Annexure-4. IV. Revocation of order dated 02.08. is enclosed as Annexure-5. V. License renewal copy is enclosed as Annexure-6. Further, you may visit this office for perusal of the record, if you wish so."
Decision
9. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner
10. alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
Page 4 of 511. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
12. However, before parting with the case, the Respondent is cautioned to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA O/o the Chief Controller of Explosive, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization, A Block, 5th Floor, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440006 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)