The appellant had sought a wide range of information covering the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023, concerning fuel quality and quantity violations across IOCL, BPCL and HPCL retail outlets.
For several queries, however, IOCL supplied available information regarding its existing regulatory framework.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that the requested information concerning inspections, non-compliant retail outlets and vigilance findings had not been supplied despite the significant public interest involved.
Defending its reply, IOCL submitted that it had already furnished all available rules, guidelines, website links and factual information.
It reiterated that the requested information related to a ten-year period and was dispersed across its nationwide network comprising 16 State Offices, 73 Divisional Offices and approximately 42,000 retail outlets.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld the Indian Oil Corporation Limited's (IOCL) refusal to disclose extensive records relating to fuel quality inspections, chip-based fuel dispensing frauds, vigilance reports and action taken against erring petrol pumps, accepting the public sector oil company's contention that compiling such information would disproportionately divert its resources under Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi dismissed a second appeal filed by RTI applicant Robin Zaccheus after finding that IOCL had already supplied the information available with it, including applicable rules, Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), website links and other factual material, while validly declining the remaining information sought.
What information did the appellant seek?
The appellant had sought a wide range of information covering the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023, concerning fuel quality and quantity violations across IOCL, BPCL and HPCL retail outlets.
Among other things, the RTI application sought details of inspections conducted to detect poor quality or short delivery of fuel, annual vigilance reports, State-wise and OMC-wise data on fuel dispensing frauds involving integrated chips, names of retail outlets found indulging in such frauds, action taken against such outlets, investigation reports, consumer complaints, audits, oversight mechanisms and technological measures adopted to prevent fuel fraud.
The applicant also requested that, if the information was not centrally maintained, the application be transferred to the respective CPIOs of the oil marketing companies or that the data be compiled in view of the public interest involved in consumer protection and accountability.
What was the IOCL's response?
Rejecting substantial portions of the request, IOCL informed the applicant that the information was "not readily available in format" and that the requested records were scattered across its 16 State Offices.
It stated that collecting and compiling the information would "disproportionately divert the resources of the Corporation" within the meaning of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
For several queries, however, IOCL supplied available information regarding its existing regulatory framework.
It informed the applicant that all active retail outlets are being automated to facilitate better monitoring of retail operations, dispensing units are being procured with upgraded specifications validated by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), regular training is imparted to retail outlet staff and consumer awareness programmes are conducted periodically.
It also provided links to the applicable Marketing Discipline Guidelines and Citizen Charter.
Regarding the applicant's request for justification of resource diversion, IOCL stated that the information was spread across 16 State Offices, 73 Divisional Offices and approximately 40,000 retail outlets, making compilation impracticable under Section 7(9).
What arguments were made before the Commission?
During the hearing, the appellant argued that the requested information concerning inspections, non-compliant retail outlets and vigilance findings had not been supplied despite the significant public interest involved.
He contended that consumers bear the burden of rising fuel prices and that, in the present digital era, IOCL ought to maintain a centralised database at its head office.
Defending its reply, IOCL submitted that it had already furnished all available rules, guidelines, website links and factual information.
It reiterated that the requested information related to a ten-year period and was dispersed across its nationwide network comprising 16 State Offices, 73 Divisional Offices and approximately 42,000 retail outlets.
According to the corporation, compiling the information would disproportionately divert the public authority's resources.
The corporation further explained that, under its standard operating procedure, a minimum of two inspections are conducted annually, which, over the relevant period, would amount to nearly eight lakh inspections, making collation of the requested information impracticable.
CIC's findings
After considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the Commission observed that IOCL had already provided the available rules, the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, website links, and factual information in its reply dated May 23, 2025, while denying the remaining information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
The Commission held that the respondent had furnished an "appropriate reply" to the RTI application and concluded that "no further intervention of the Commission is required." Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.
Case title ~ Robin Zaccheus v CPIO : Indian Oil Corporation Limited
