Central Information Commission
Vinod Singhal vs Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi on 30 March, 2026
CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869 के ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067 िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869 Vinod Singhal ..िशकायतकता/Complainant VERSUS बनाम The CPIO Asst. Director-(PCP Division) & CPIO, Central Pollution Control Board (M/o. Environment, Forests & Climate Change) CPIO: (M/o. Environment, Forests & Climate Change), Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the complaint: RTI : 16.01.2025 FA : Not on record Complaint : 05.04.2025 CPIO : 31.01.2025 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 03.03.2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2025 CORAM: Hon'ble Commissioner Shri P R Ramesh ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.01.2025 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 7CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869 I, Vinod Singhal, President of Petroleum Traders Welfare Association, Delhi, at 2/53 B, Laxmi Market, 1st Floor, North Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi 110026, intend to seek the following information under RTI Act, 2005 in reference to the Speaking Order of the Steering Committee dated 04.12.2024 (bearing F. No. CP-21/91/2024-WM-II-HO-CPCB-HO) in the matter of W.P No. 10884/2024 filed by Petroleum Traders Welfare Association, with regard to the implementation of EPR for used oil. (hereinafter referred to as 'Speaking Order') (Copy enclosed) pertaining to:
A. The meeting held by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ministry') with the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, CPCB along with all concerned stakeholders (hereinafter referred to as 'the said meeting(s)') to discuss the modalities for the formation of Draft EPR for Used Oil as referred to in Sl. No.5 of Annexure-I to the Speaking Order.
1. Dates of the said meeting(s).
2. A copy of the communication(s)/notice(s) sent to the concerned stakeholders for the said meeting(s).
3. List of the concerned stakeholders who attended the said meeting(s).
4. Specify if stakeholders from the Base Oil industry were invited to attend the said meeting(s).
5. If the answer to the query at 4 above is yes, kindly provide a list of the stakeholders invited from the Base Oil industry to the said meeting...etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.01.2025 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"In view of above, it is observed that RTI application fee has been submitted in the form of an Indian Postal Order (IPO) bearing no. 64F 766656 dated 21.06.2024 for Page 2 of 7 CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869 amount of Rs. 10. As per the terms & conditions of the IPOs, the IPOs are valid for a period of only 6 months from the date of issuance.
In view of above, it is to inform that the requisite fee has been paid in the form of an expired IPO, which can't be considered. Therefore, your original application is returned herewith.
Further, it is to inform that an applicant, who wish to seek information under the RTI Act has to pay an application fee of Rs. 10/- in the form valid demand draft or a bankers cheque or an Indian Postal Order with. The payment of fee of Rs. 10/- can also be made by way of cash to the public authority against a proper receipt. Further, if the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim for belonging to the below poverty line. You can also file an RTI application through RTI portal i.e. https://www.rtionline.gov.in/"
3. The Complainant filed RTI Application with fresh IPO and also contended that IPO is valid for 24 months.
4. The PIO, CPCB transferred the RTI Application to PIO, Environment, Forests & Climate Change on 12.03.2025.
5. The PIO, Environment, Forests & Climate Change furnished reply dated 01.04.2025 as under:
The same RTI was raised by you earlier vide no.
MOENF/R/P/25/00042 dated 22/01/2025 on which the reply was provided to you via physical post.
6. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 05.04.2025 Page 3 of 7 CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Ms. Bhavya Kapoor- Authorized Representative of the Ms. Bhavya Kapoor- Authorized Representative of the Appellant Respondent: Shri G Thirumurthy, Scientist F, Ms. Deepti Kapil Scientist E and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Scientist F- participated in the hearing.
5. Ms. Bhavya Kapoor stated that the instant Complaint has been filed against the Respondent for unlawfully returning the Complainant's RTI application dated 16.01.2025, annexing Rs. 10/- Postal Order No. 64 F 766656 dated 21.06.2024, vide CPCB letter dated 31.01.2025 on invalid and erroneous grounds of expiry of Postal Order in six months from the date of issuance, contrary to the applicable law in this regard. She stated that the Rs 10/- Postal Order bearing No. 64F 766656 dated 21.06.2024 refused by the Respondent is valid today also in terms of the provisions of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 (applicable till 16.12.2024) as well as the Post Office Regulations, 2024 (applicable w.e.f. 16.12.
2024). She stated that despite raising objection and sending a fresh Postal Order, the Complainant did not receive any direct response from the Respondent
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the fresh IPOs are preferred in reference to RTI Applications as in government department different sections deal with the RTI Applications and encashment of IPO gets affected and could be done only after payment of second commission. They averred that there was no malafide on the part of PIO and PIO, PIO CPCB had transferred the RTI Application to PIO, Environment, Forests & Climate Change on 12.03.2025. Further as similar RTI Application was already responded by the PIO, Environment, Forests & Climate Change, the same fact was communicated to the Complainant.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the main contention of the Complainant is that the IPO dated 21.06.2024 which was annexed with the RTI Application was a valid Page 4 of 7 CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869 IPO as per Rule No. 180-D of Indian Postal Rules as well as recently enforced Post Office Regulations 2024. It is pertinent to mention that Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, which was applicable till 16.12.2024, the Postal Order is valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue. The relevant provision is reproduced below:
Rule 180-D, Indian Postal Rules, 1933-
"(1) Indian Postal Orders presented within 24 months from the last day of the month of issue are encashed without second commission..."
8. Furthermore, even as per the Post Office Regulation, 2024, applicable with effect from 16.12.2024, the Postal Order is valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue. The relevant provision is reproduced below:
Regulation 158 (1), Post Office Regulation, 2024 "(1) The postal orders presented within twenty-four months from the last day of the month of issue, are encashed without second commission."
9. Thus, a combined reading aforementioned provisions clearly indicates that the Postal Order is valid for a period of 24 months from the date of issue and can be encashed if presented within twenty-four months from the last day of the month of issue, encashed without second commission. However, considering the fact that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant after receipt of fresh IPO. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
10. Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
Page 5 of 7CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869 "...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."Page 6 of 7
CIC/CPCBD/C/2025/112869
11. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
12. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Asst. Director-(PCP Division) & CPIO, Central Pollution Control Board (M/o.
Environment, Forests & Climate Change), Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032.
2 Vinod Singhal Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)