Explosives Licensing Scandal: Former DG, Petroleum Secretaries Accused of Bypassing Cabinet Authority

Explosives Licensing Scandal: Former DG, Petroleum Secretaries Accused of Bypassing Cabinet Authority, A serious controversy has erupted around the former Director General (DG) of Explosives and ex-secretaries of the Petroleum Division over what appears to be a systematic misuse of authority and blatant circumvention of federal cabinet approval in sensitive appeal cases involving energy companies.

Read More: MoITT to Conduct Independent Third‑Party Audit of Asan Khidmat Markaz Initiative

Official documents reveal that the former DG Explosives quietly processed at least eight appeal cases by securing approvals from petroleum secretaries alone — deliberately sidestepping the federal cabinet, the only constitutionally competent authority for such decisions.

Contradictory Actions Exposed

In a striking contradiction, a letter dated January 21, 2021, written by the Director of the Explosives Department on behalf of the DG Explosives, clearly acknowledged that only the federal cabinet held the legal authority to approve explosive product licences.
Despite this admission, the DG allegedly continued issuing licences from 2021 to 2023 with mere secretarial endorsements — a move critics describe as a direct violation of established legal procedure.

Ironically, by 2024, the Petroleum Division itself reverted to seeking cabinet approval for similar cases, effectively exposing the irregular approvals granted in previous years.

Whistleblower Petition and Documentary Evidence

The issue gained traction after an employee of the Explosives Department filed a formal petition backed by documentary proof, urging the petroleum secretary to initiate action against what he termed “illegal and unauthorized orders.”

The petition specifically named former DG Explosives Abdul Wali Khan and certain petroleum secretaries, accusing them of issuing unlawful directives without federal cabinet clearance.

Legal Framework Ignored

The controversy also revolves around the addition of ancillary facilities — such as food outlets — at petrol stations, which are not explicitly permitted under Rule 98(A) of the Petroleum Rules, 1937. Historically, limited relaxations were granted only through special permission under Rule 165.

Following the Supreme Court’s landmark Mustafa Impex ruling, the term “federal government” was unequivocally defined as the prime minister and the cabinet, leaving little room for bureaucratic interpretation. Under Rule 165, exemptions must be granted strictly through cabinet authority — not departmental discretion.

Despite this clear legal position, approvals allegedly continued to be issued at the secretarial level, raising serious questions about administrative overreach and possible abuse of power.

Allegations of Intentional Misrepresentation

According to the petitioner, “Eight illegal orders without lawful authority” were passed in appeal cases under Rules 122(1) and 165 of the Petroleum Rules 1973, with recommendations intentionally portraying the petroleum secretary as the appellate authority instead of the federal cabinet. This, the petition argues, was not an oversight but a deliberate misrepresentation of jurisdiction.

Silence from Authorities

Requests for official comments were sent to both the Petroleum Division and the DG Explosives office, but no response was received at the time of filing the report — further intensifying suspicions surrounding the case.