The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 04.11.2021 seeking
information as under:

Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a
First Appeal dated Undated, which has not been adjudicated by the First
Appellate Authority as per available records.

The Complainant submitted that he has not received any response qua the
instant RTI Application from the Respondent.
The respondent submitted that adequate reply qua the instant RTI
Application on the basis of available records has been given to the Appellant
on 03.12.2021 through speed post. The contents of the same are as under:

At the instance of the Commission whether the First Appeal has been
adjudicated or not to which the Respondent submitted that First Appeal has
been adjudicated on 01.01.2022. The contents of the same are as under:

                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/604334

Page 4 of 6

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri S.K
Dutta, Secretary & Appellate Authority vide letter dated 01.02.2023, wherein
the Commission has been apprised as under:

The Complainant interjected and apprised the bench that he has not received
any response qua the instant RTI Application from

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a
complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has provided adequate reply
to the Complainant on the basis of available records within the stipulated
time-frame, no mala-fide can be attributed against the Respondent. Hence,
the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/604334

Page 5 of 6

Wit


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 11.11.2021 seeking
information on the following two points:

The Dy. Registrar & CPIO, Banaras Hindu University, Rajiv Gandhi South
Campus Barkachha, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 07.12.2021,
informed to the Appellant as under:

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604483

Page 3 of 6

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.12.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.01.2022, informed as under:

The Appellant stated that false information with respect to point 1 of the RTI
Application has been provided by the Respondent therefore the
documentation fee of Rs.16/- as charged from him should be refunded. Upon
being queried by the Commission, the Appellant stated that vide instant RTI
Application information with respect to exchange of quarter has been sought

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604483

Page 4 of 6

but the Respondent has furnished information with respect to change of
quarters.
The Commission remarked that the information sought vide point 1 of the
RTI Application pertains to third party and the same falls under the category
of exempted information. The Commission further asked the Appellant to
establish larger public interest for seeking such exempted information, for
which the Appellant could not provide any cogent explanation.
The Respondent submitted that the requisite information with respect to the
instant RTI Application has been provided to t

The Commission upon cogent perusal of the information sought in the RTI
Application and replies given by the Respondent, learns that the Respondent
has provided personal information of third party which is exempted from
disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and such lackadaisical
conduct of the Respondent is not in accordance with the extant provisions of

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604483

Page 5 of 6

the RTI Act. The Commission strictly admonishes the concerned CPIO for
providing the personal information of third party to the Appellant, without
application of mind.
Be that as it may, the Commission observes that since the information
sought is exempted from disclosure for which the Appellant has failed to
establish larger public interest, no further actio

section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
Section 8

/Deputy Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Rajiv Gandhi South Campus, Barkachha, Mirzapur


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 04.09.2021 seeking
information on the following fourteen points:
“I need following information under RTI Act 2005 regarding Quarter or
flats at Rajiv Gandhi South Campus (RGSC), BHU (point-wise
information)
1) REGULATION
FOR
CLASSIFFICATION,
ALLOTMENT,
RETENTION
AND
VACATION
OF
RESIDENTIAL
ACCOMMODATION IN THE BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY is
either applicable to RGSC or only to main campus.
2) Provide the copy of constitution of Physical Verification
Committee newly constructed teachers flat at RGSC.
3) Physical Verification Committee verified the newly constructed
teachers flat at RGSC on 02.09.2021. Provide copy of handover
letter of 84 newly constructed flats to Professor Incharge by any
authority (CPWD or UWD) for

The Appellant stated that he is still longing for information with respect to
point 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 & 12 of the RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that since the information sought vide instant
RTI Application is voluminous in nature and not readily available in the
manner as sought by the Appellant, the inspection for the same has been
offered to the Appellant which he availed. However, the Appellant did not
earmark any document after inspecting the records.
The Appellant further interjected that the requisite information with respect
to the averred points be provided to him, so the Commission remarked that

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604655

Page 5 of 7

the averred information with respect to point 6, 8, 9, 11 & 12 is not readily
available in their records and the same has been inspected by him also.
Further, furnishing the same will require collection and collation from
different sections/offices/files and the CPIO is not supposed to do the same
as

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604655

Page 6 of 7

has attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame,
the Appellant has raised dissatisfaction with respect to point 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11
& 12 of the RTI Application. The Commission further observes that the
Appellant inspected the relevant records with respect to point 8, 9, 11 & 12
of the RTI Application but he has not earmarked any document, and as such
the Commission upholds the stance taken by the Respondent during hearing
that the requisite information cannot be provided as it is not readily
available. Hence, the Commission is unable to provide any reli


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 07.11.2021 seeking
information on the following seven points:
1) “Provide the copy of letter no. R/GAD/Statute Statute 3-A/117369 dated
09.07.2019 of Assistant Registrar (General Administration)
2) Provide certified copy of Annexure 1 annexed with letter Ref No.
PIC/RGSC/(Bark) Mzp./2019-20/543 to 544, dated 03.10.2019 of Professor
Incharge, RGSC.
3) Provide the copy of Academic Council Resolution ACR No. 60 dated
30.06.2010 for the creation of Faculty of Professional and Multi-disciplinary
Studies at RGSC and annexure related to detailed proposal.
4) Provide the copy of Executive Council Resolution ECR No. 205 dated
31.08.2010 for the creation of Faculty of Professional and Multi-disciplinary
Studies at RGSC
5) Provide c

The Appellant stated that he is still longing for information with respect to
point 1 & 2 of the RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that the requisite information with respect to
point 2 of the RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant on the
basis of the information as available on record. The Appellant interjected
that the Respondent has only provided the letter dated 03.10.2019 whereas
he has specifically sought for the annexure of the said letter which has not
been provided. The Respondent submitted that no such annexure is
available.

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604669

Page 4 of 6

The Commission queried the Respondent whether an effort can be made to
search their database for the averred annexure of letter dated 03.10.2019, to
which the Respondent affirmatively agreed.
As regards point 1 of the RTI Application, the Respondent submitted that the
RTI Application has been transferred to the CPIO – (General
Administration), Banaras Hindu Uni

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent
has attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame,
the Appellant has raised contention for information on point 1 & 2 of the
RTI Application.
In view of the above and in the light of the submissions made during
hearing,  the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to obtain the
requisite information with respect to point 1 of the RTI Application from the

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604669

Page 5 of 6

concerned custodian of information and furnish the same to the Appellant
within the time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, as regards the information on point


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 02.11.2021 seeking
information on the following two points:

The Dy. Registrar & CPIO, Banaras Hindu University, Rajiv Gandhi South
Campus Barkachha, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 09.11.2021,
transferred RTI application to concerned CPIO and marked a copy to the
Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.12.2021, informed as under:

CIC/BANHU/A/2022/604670

Page 3 of 5

The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI
Application has been provided by the Respondent till date.
The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application has been
transferred to the Executive council for information but they transferred the
same to the CPIO (General Administration). Upon being queried by the
Commission, the Respondent submitted that since the information sought
relates to executive council resolution, it pertains to the Executive Council
only.
The Commission further queried the Respondent whether they informed the
CPIO – Executive Council to attend the instant hearing to which the
Respondent replied in negative. So the Commission remarked that since no
information has been provided to the Appellant till date and the concerned
custodian of information has also not been informed regarding the hearing,
the requisite information has to be furnished to the Appellant after obtaining
the same from the concerned custodian of i

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that no information with
respect to the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant till
date. The Commission expresses severe displeasure with such lackadaisical
approach of the Respondent public authority and strictly admonishes them
for the same as such approach defeats the spirit and purpose of the RTI Act.
The Commission further counsels the Respondent Public Authority to deal
with the RTI Applications in a judicious manner in order to keep the letter
and spirit of the RTI Act alive.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes that since no information
has been provided to the Appellant till date, the Commission deems it fit to
di


The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 08.11.2021 seeking
information on the following seven points:

                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/604805

Page 3 of 6

Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a
First Appeal dated Undated, which has not been adjudicated by the First
Appellate Authority as per available records.

The Complainant submitted that he has not received any response qua the
instant RTI Application from the Respondent.
The respondent submitted that adequate and point-wise reply qua the instant
RTI Application has been given to the Appellant on 03.12.2021 through
speed post. The contents of the same are as under:

At the instance of the Commission whether the First Appeal has been
adjudicated or not to which the Respondent submitted that First Appeal has
been adjudicated on 01.01.2022. The contents of the same are as under:
                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/604805

Page 4 of 6

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri S.K
Dutta, Secretary & Appellate Authority vide letter dated 01.02.2023, wherein
the Commission has been apprised as under:

The Complainant interjected and apprised the bench that he has not received
any response qua the instant RTI Application from the Respondent.
I

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a
                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/604805

Page 5 of 6

complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has provided adequate reply
to the Complainant on the basis of available records within the stipulated
time-frame, no mala-fide can be attributed against the Respondent. Hence,
the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
Wit

Animal Welfare Board of India, 42 KM Stone, Delhi- Agra Highway, (NH-2),


The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 11.11.2021 seeking
information on the following ten points:

Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a
First Appeal dated Undated, which has not been adjudicated by the First
Appellate Authority as per available records.

                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/605372

Page 3 of 6

The Complainant submitted that he has not received any response qua the
instant RTI Application from the Respondent.
The respondent submitted that information sought in the instant RTI
Application is not available in their records and accordingly adequate reply
qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant on
10.12.2021 through speed post. The contents of the same are as under:

She further added that the information sought in the RTI Application pertains
to Central Zoo Authority which is under Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change as the wild animals are rescued by CZA.
At the instance of the Commission whether the First Appeal has been
adjudicated or not to which the Respondent submitted that First Appeal has
been adjudicated on 17.01.2022. The contents of the same are as under:

                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/605372

Page 4 of 6

The Complainant interjected and apprised the

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a
complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has provided adequate reply
to the Complainant on the basis of available records within the stipulated
time-frame, no mala-fide can be attributed against the Respondent. Hence,
the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
                                                                           CIC/AWBIC/C/2022/605372

Page 5 of 6

Wit

Animal Welfare of India, 42 KM Stone, Delhi- Agra Highway, (NH-2),


The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 26.06.2021 seeking
information on the following five points:
“I want to know about some rules and its practice regarding issuing
warning/show-cause letters to the employees of NIT Rourkela. Please provide
the following information from Central Public Information Officer of National
Institute of Technology Rourkela.

1) Kindly provide the list of inclusions/activities/actions by your employees
that falls under insubordination according to NIT Rourkela.
2) Kindly share the circular by the competent authority, where you have
circulated the above mention list to your employees.
3) If an employee of NIT Rourkela shows interest to serve the institute by
joining an academic administrative position verbally/ by email/ by
letter

The Complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply provided
by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application as the same is evasive
and misleading in nature.
The respondent submitted that there are no such rules regarding
insubordination as sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application
and accordingly such sort of hypothetical information is not available in their
records. He further added that only CCS rules are applicable to the
employees of NIT, Rourkela.
The Commission interjected and remarked the Respondent that this reply
should have been given to the Complainant at the very first instance.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri
Chitranjan Sahoo, Assistant Registrar (Establishment), vide letter dated
08.12.2022 and the same has been sent to the Complainant, wherein the
Commission has been apprised as under:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a

          CIC/NITRK/C/2021/640024

Page 4 of 5

complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker.
The Commission observes that since the Complainant has sought
hypothetical and situation specific queries in the instant RTI Application and
the Respondent has duly informed the Complainant that such sort of
information is not available in their records and further vide let

National Institute of Technology, Sector 1, Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh,


The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 04.06.2021 seeking
information on the following eight points:

Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a
First Appeal dated 15.07.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order
dated 18.09.2021, informed as under:

CIC/DCDKS/A/2021/645870

Page 3 of 6

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with reply furnished by the
Respondent as the First Appellate Authority has wrongly denied the
information under section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent submitted that a reply with respect to the instant RTI
Application has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 08.07.2021
wherein the information sought has been denied to the Appellant under
section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The contents of the letter dated 08.07.2021
are as under:

CIC/DCDKS/A/2021/645870

Page 4 of 6

The Respondent further submitted that the First Appellate Authority passed
an order wherein it upheld the denial of information under section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act except for point 1 & 6 of the RTI Act.
The Commission queried the Respondent to substantiate his stance with
respect to denial of information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, to
which the Respondent submitted that the information sought is regardi

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has
adequately attended the instant RTI Application by furnishing the
disclosable available information to the Appellant and by denying rest of the
information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the Commission finds
no infirmity with the same. Further, the Respondent has also complied with
the direction of the First Appellate Authority. In view of the above the
Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

Dargah Committee Office, Dargah Khwaja Saheb, Gali Langarkhana, Dargah Bazar,


The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 12.02.2021 seeking
information as under:

The CPIO vide online reply dated 17.02.2021, informed to the Complainant
as under:

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/646605

Page 3 of 7

Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2021.
The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 04.03.2021, informed
as under:

The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the
hearing notice.
The respondent from EPFO, New Delhi submitted that the RTI Application
of the Complainant is non-specific and ambiguous and therefore instant RTI
Application has been transferred to the all 150 regions of EPFO for
furnishing requisite information to the Complainant. The Respondent further
submitted that concerned regional offices have attended the RTI Application
and furnished the reply on the basis of the available information to the
Complainant.

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/646605

Page 4 of 7

A written submission of the Complainant has been received by the
Commission vide letter dated 22.11.2022 wherein the Commission has been
apprised as under:

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri.
Nishant Yadav, CPIO & Regional Provident Commissioner – II, Employees
Provident Fund Organization, RO-Ja

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a
complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has adequately attended the
instant RTI Application within the stipulated time-frame, no mala-fide can

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/646605

Page 6 of 7

be attributed against the Respondent. Hence, the Commission finds no
further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the compl

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ladowali Rd, opp. Govt. Sr. Sec. School,


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 29.12.2020 seeking
information as under:
“All action taken on the each grievance from the list given in attachment
enclosed with this application Please provide duly attested and signed
copies from authorized signatory of following Information required:
1. All Actions taken on particular grievances
2. Copies of all documents to support all action”
Shri. Ramesh Chandra, CPIO, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Jaisalmer
House, New Delhi vide letter dated 21.06.2021, informed to the Appellant as
under:
“It is to mention that your application was already forwarded to the
requisite office. The copy of detailed is enclosed for your reference.
It is therefore requested to pursue the matter/file application/claim in
the office of La

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the
Respondent as they have provided the copies of the grievances informing
that it has been transferred to the concerned state department.
The Respondent submitted that all the grievances of the Appellant pertains
to the State Govt. which does not fall under their jurisdiction therefore no
action lies on their part, so the averred grievances of the Appellant have
been forwarded to the concerned department and the copies of the same have
also been sent to the Appellant as requested by him vide instant RTI
Application.
The Commission remarked there has been a delay of more than 6 months in
furnishing the reply to the Appellant, to which the Respondent submitted

CIC/OTCLC/A/2021/646949

Page 4 of 6

that delay occurred because the matter pertains to the concerned state
department and it took time to collect the data, moreover the unfortunate
circumstances were prevailing in the wake o

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that Respondent has furnished
a reply with respect to the instant RTI Application with a delay of more than
6 months, for which an adequate explanation has been provided by the
Respondent and accordingly the delay occurred is hereby condoned.
Further, the Appellant has raised dissatisfaction with the reply furnished by
the Respondent. In view of the above and in the light of the submissions
made during hearing, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the
present CPIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the
available record showing that grievances of the Appellant have been
forwarded to the concerned department, on a mutually decided dat

O/o the Chief Labour Commissioner(Central), Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg,


The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2021 seeking
information as under:

The CPIO vide online reply dated 17.02.2021, informed to the Complainant
as under:
“Your RTI application No EPFOG/R/E/21/01077 dated 23/01/2021 on
same subject has already been circulated to all offices through the
website for providing reply.”

Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2021.
The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 04.03.2021, informed
as under:

                               CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647052

Page 3 of 6

The Complainant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the
hearing notice.
The respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant
RTI Application has already been furnished to the Complainant. The
Respondent further added that since another RTI Application with similar
subject matter had already been transferred to all the regional offices, a reply
from Jabalpur Office has been sent to the Complainant vide letter dated
02.12.2022 and the contents of the same are as under:

                               CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647052

Page 4 of 6

The contents of the reply dated 04.03.2021 as enclosed with the above reply
are as under:

A written submission has been received by the Commission from
Complainant vide letter dated 02.12.2022, wherein the Commission has been
Apprised as under:

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Smt.
Sunita Nagpal

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a
complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker. Since the Respondent has attended the instant RTI
Application within the stipulated time-frame, no mala-fide can be attributed
against the Respondent. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of
intervention in the instant matter.
Be that as it may, the Commission further observes that RO-Jabalpur vide
letter dated 04.03.2021 has sought for the requisite RTI fee even though they
receive

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur,


The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2021 seeking
information as under:

The CPIO vide online reply dated 17.02.2021, informed to the Complainant
as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2021.
The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 04.03.2021, informed
as under:

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647670

Page 3 of 6

At the outset, the Commission remarks that the Complainant has preferred
three
complaints
bearing
files
no.
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/648563,
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647670 & CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/646605 respectively
on single RTI Application dated 12.02.2021 and has paid the requisite RTI
Fee for one RTI Application only and the Respondent concurred with the
same.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from the
Appellant vide letter dated 22.11.2022 wherein the Commission has been
apprised as under:

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647670

Page 4 of 6

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. Y. D
Srinivas, CPIO & Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees
Provident Fund Organisation, RO-Rajamahendravaram vide letter dated
21.11.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647670

Page 5 of 6

complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker. The Commission observes that the Complainant
has
preferred
three
complaints
bearing
files
no.
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/648563,
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647670
&
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/646605 respectively on single RTI Application dated
12.02.2021 and the subject matter of the RTI Application has al

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, LIC Office Lane, Morampudi Junction,


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 17.07.2021 seeking
information on the following three points:

The Assistant Registrar & CPIO, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh
vide letter dated 04.08.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.08.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.09.2021, informed as under:

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/648390

Page 3 of 6

The Appellant stated that incorrect and misleading information with respect
to point 1 of the RTI Application has been provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant
RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant on the basis of the
information as available on record. He further substantiated his stance by
submitting that the work of the dam has been done through C.P.W.D under
the surveillance of University Works Department and inspection of the same
has also been done and as such no infirmities have been found. Therefore, no
action as such has been done on the representation of the Appellant, since it
has already been checked and found in order.
The Appellant interjected that some noting for the same can be provided to
which the Respondent submitted that no such noting has been taken for the
same.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri.
Rajendra, CPIO & Assistant Registrar, Off

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has
furnished a point wise and categorical reply with respect to the instant RTI
Application within the stipulated time frame. However, the Appellant raised
dissatisfaction with reply on point 1 of the RTI Application for which the
Respondent submitted that no such notings have been taken.
In view of the above and in order to allay the apprehensions of the
Appellant, the Commission deems it fit to direct the present CPIO to make
an effort to search their database/records in a prudent manner to find/locate
the relevant information with respect to point no.1 RTI Application and
provide the same to the Appellant within 15 days from the date o

Banaras Hindu University, Rajiv Gandhi South Campus, Barkachha, Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh 231 001


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 19.08.2021 seeking
information on the following one point:

The CPIO vide online reply dated 31.08.2021, informed to the Appellant as
under:
“The desired information is not available.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.08.2021,
which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per
available records.

The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI
Application has been furnished by the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that a reply has been furnished to the Appellant
wherein the Appellant has been informed that no information is available,
however upon looking into the matter it has been observed that the
information with respect to the instant RTI Application pertains to

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/648532

Page 3 of 4

Barkaccha Unit, Rajiv Gandhi South Campus as the Joint Disbursing officer
of the concerned unit gives the pay.
The Commission queried Shri. Naresh Chandra Pandey, CPIO & Assistant
Registrar (Rajiv Gandhi South Campus) that since the information sought
pertains to their unit, can the requisite information be furnished to the
Appellant, to which he affirmatively agreed.

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent
has attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time, no
information has been provided to the Appellant.
In view of the above and in the light of the submissions made during hearing
the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent - Shri. Naresh Chandra
Pandey, CPIO & Assistant Registrar (Rajiv Gandhi South Campus) to
furnish the requisite information with respect to the instant RTI Application
to the Appellant within the time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

Banaras Hindu University, RTI Cell, Ajagara, Varanasi, U.P -221005


The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2021 seeking
information as under:

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/648563

Page 3 of 7

Shri B. K. Verma, CPIO (Link Officer)/Assistant P. F. Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bathinda, Punjab vide letter dated
23.02.2021, informed to the Complainant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2021.
The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.03.2021, informed to
Complainant as under:

At the outset, the Commission remarks that the Complainant has preferred
three
complaints
bearing
files
no.
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/648563,
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647670 & CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/646605 respectively
on single RTI Application dated 12.02.2021 and has paid the requisite RTI
Fee for one RTI Application only and the Respondent concurred with the
same.
A written submission of the Complainant has been received by the
Commission vide letter dated 22.11.2022 wherein the Commission has been
apprised as under:

A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri.
Keshav Pratap Singh, CPIO & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, RO-Bhatinda vide letter dated
21.11.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/648563

Page 5 of 7

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a
complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause

       CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/648563

Page 6 of 7

to the information seeker. The Commission observes that the Complainant
has
preferred
three
complaints
bearing
files
no.
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/648563,
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/647670
&
CIC/EPFOG/C/2021/646605 respectively on single RTI Application dated
12.02.2021 and the subject matter of the RTI Application has already been
decided by the Commission in CIC file No. CIC/EP

Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishaya Nidhi Bhawan, Urban Estate Phase-I,


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 14.10.2021 seeking
information on the following four points:
1) “Provide me the teacher vacancy position tgt & pgt subject wise,
special educator,physical education teacher, art teacher,music
teacher till october 2021
2) Provide me the vacancy position of non-teaching post till october
2021
3) Provide me the no of applied candidates & engaged candidates in
various recruitments 2010-2021 for different posts.
4) Provide me the written cut-off in various recruitment 2010-2021”

The CPIO vide letter dated 22.10.2021, has furnished a reply to the
Appellant and the contents of the same are as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.10.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated

The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the
hearing notice.
The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant
RTI Application has already been furnished to the Appellant. The
Commission interjected that the Appellant vide instant Second Appeal has
raised dissatisfaction with respect to points 3 & 4 of the RTI Application, to
which the Respondent submitted that points 3 & 4 are not specific and it
cannot be deciphered that information with respect to which recruitment is
being sought by the Appellant as numerous recruitments have taken place
between 2010-2021. He further added that in this regard the Appellant has
been asked to specify/clarify the information being sought but no response
has come from his side.

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has
attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame by
furnishing the requisite information to the Appellant as available on record
and the Commission finds no infirmity with the same. Further, the
Respondent has provided adequate explanation during hearing with respect

CIC/NAVVS/A/2021/651190

Page 4 of 5

to the dissatisfaction raised by the Appellant vide instant second appeal.
Moreover, the Appellant has not participated in the hearing to buttress his
case. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the
instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh -201307


The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 16.09.2021 seeking
information as under:

CIC/NAVVS/A/2021/651559

Page 3 of 6

Shri. Neeraj Kumar, PIO, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Patna vide letter
dated 11.10.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.10.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.10.2021, informed as under:

The Appellant did not participate in the hearing; however, he informed the
registry of this bench regarding his non-appearance from the instant hearing
due to health issues.
The Respondent submitted that a reply with respect to the instant RTI
Application has been furnished to the Appellant. The Commission
interjected that the reply furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 11.10.2021

CIC/NAVVS/A/2021/651559

Page 4 of 6

is inappropriate as it states that no information is available and the same is
not possible as the information sought by the Appellant is specific and
categorical and as such it should have been maintained. The Respondent
could not provide any cogent explanation with respect to the above
observation of the Commission. He further added that previous CPIO must
have attended the instant RTI Application.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that
replies with respect to the instant RTI Application have been furnishe

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the reply furnished by the
then CPIO is inappropriate and evasive and further the answering respondent

CIC/NAVVS/A/2021/651559

Page 5 of 6

Shri. R. P Singh, CPIO & Principal Incharge, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Vrindavan, west Champaran has come for the hearing completely
unprepared and without the knowledge of the facts of the case. The
Commission expresses severe displeasure against Shri. R. P Singh, CPIO &
Principal Incharge, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Vrindavan, west
Champaran for appearing before the Commission completely unprepared
and unaware of the facts of the instant case. Hence, he is being warned on
this count and is c


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 18.08.2021 seeking
information on the following ten points:

The Dy. Registrar & CPIO, Banaras Hindu University, Rajiv Gandhi South
Campus, Barkachha, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 14.09.2021,
informed to the Appellant as under:

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/654200

Page 3 of 6

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.09.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.10.2021, informed as under:

The Appellant stated that information with respect to point 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7 of
the RTI Application despite depositing the requisite documentation fee to
tune of Rs.8/- for the same.
The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with the respect to the
instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant and for
information on point 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7 of the RTI Application, the Appellant has
been asked to deposit the requisite documentation fee.
The Commission remarked that it is the contention of the Appellant that he
has deposited the requisite documentation fee, so the same should be
revisited and requisite information with the respect to the averred be
provided to the Appellant. The Respondent concurred with the above remark
of the Commission and further agreed to do the needful.

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent
has attended the instant RTI Application in a point wise and categorical
manner within the stipulated time frame, the Appellant has raised contention
that information with respect to points 1, 2, 4, 6 & 7 of the RTI Application
has not been furnished despite depositing the requisite documentation fee to
tune of Rs.8/- for the same.
In view of the above, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent
to revisit the averred points of the RTI Application and furnish the requisite

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/654200

Page 5 of 6

information to the Appellant within the time frame of 15 days from the date
of receipt of thi

/Deputy Registrar Banaras Hindu University, Rajiv Gandhi South Campus, Barkachha, Mirzapur


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 06.10.2021 seeking
information on the following three points:

The CPIO vide online reply dated 15.11.2021, informed to the Appellant as
under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.11.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 10.11.2021, informed as
under:
“Information is referred to”

The Appellant stated that the Respondent vide reply dated 15.11.2021 has
mentioned RTI No. which has not been filed by him.
The Respondent submitted that due to an inadvertent typographical error the
RTI No. has been written as 20378 whereas the RTI No. is 50378 which has
been filed by the Appellant on 06.11.2017. The Respondent further
submitted that as far as the instant RTI Application is concerned it has been
informed to the Appellant that the averred information has already been
provided to the Appellant vide reply dated 27.11.2017 in response to another
RTI Application of the Appellant with a similar subject matter.
The Commission remarked that the reply furnished with respect to the
instant RTI Application is inappropriate as the copy of previous reply should
have also been sent to the Appellant.
The Appellant interjected that the subject matter of the previous RTI
Application was entirely different and the same is not similar to the instant
RTI Application in an

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/654271

Page 4 of 5

has furnished a reply with respect to the instant RTI Application to the
Appellant, the same seems to be evasive and inappropriate.
In view of the above, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent
to revisit the instant RTI Application and furnish a revised categorical to the
Appellant within the time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.


The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2021 seeking
information on the following five points:

The PIO, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya Sagar (M.P.) vide letter
dated 12.10.2021, informed to the Complainant as under:

       CIC/DHGVV/C/2021/654576

Page 3 of 6

The
Head,
Department
of
Education,
Doctor
Harisingh
Gour
Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, (M.P.) dated 07.10.2021 wherein informed as
under:

Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.10.2021.
The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.10.2021, informed as
under:

       CIC/DHGVV/C/2021/654576

Page 4 of 6

At the outset, the Commission remarked that the subject-matter of the instant
RTI Application has already been heard on 04.01.2023 and decided by the
Hon’ble Commission on 08.02.2023 in another case bearing File No.

       CIC/DHGVV/C/2021/654576

Page 5 of 6

CIC/DHGVV/A/2021/654546. The Appellant and the Respondent concurred
with the remarks of the Commission.

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that subject-matter of the
instant RTI Application has already been heard on 04.01.2023 and decided
by the Hon’ble Commission on 08.02.2023 in another case bearing File No.
CIC/DHGVV/A/2021/654546.
Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is barred by principles of Res
Judicata. No fresh adjudication is required in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.

Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwadiyalaya, University Road, Sagar,


The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2021 seeking
information on the following nine points:

       CIC/UODEL/C/2021/654599

Page 3 of 8

Dr. Jwala Prasad, CPIO, University of Delhi, Delhi vide letter dated
13.10.2021, informed to the Complainant as under:

       CIC/UODEL/C/2021/654599

Page 4 of 8

Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2021,
which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per
available records.

The Complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply furnished
by the Respondent as the information sought vide instant RTI Application
has not been furnished till date. Upon being queried by the Commission, the
Appellant stated that earlier he was working as technical assistant with the
Department of Chemistry on contract basis.
The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application has been
attended within the stipulated time and replies have been furnished to the
Appellant on the basis of the inputs received from concerned
sections/departments. Further, for information on point 1(i) - (ii) of the RTI
Application, it is submitted that it pertain to vigilance section complaints
which are duly updated on the grievance portal as such the Complainant can
check the status of the same.
The Respondent further submitted that relevant information with respect to
points 2(i) – (ix) of the RTI Application could not be traced/ found available
despite many efforts

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a
complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only
adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the
information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause
to the information seeker. The Commission further observes that the
Respondent has attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated
time-frame by furnishing replies on the basis of the inputs as received from
concerned sections. Since, the Respondent has provided relevant information
with respect to point 2(vi), (vii) & (viii) of the RTI Application to the
Complainant during hearing and further agreed to furn


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 27.08.2021 seeking
information on the following five points:
1) “Please furnish me the approved format of degree certificates
which is being issued to the students of the university.
2) Also, furnish me the approved format of marksheets which is being
issued to the students of the university.
3) Upon reliance on which clause of the university statute, the
university is writing on the backside of the marksheets of the
students of Water Engineering and Management(2010 - 2019
batch) that the degree is merger of two courses B.Tech Civil
Engineering and M. Tech Water Engineering and Management.
4) Do university have to take permission from UGC /AICTE before
granting such marksheets( as being given to the students of Water
Engi

The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI
Application has been provided by the Respondent till date.
The Respondent submitted that a reply with respect to the instant RTI
Application has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 28.02.2022
wherein the copy of resolution along with the format of marksheet and
degree certificate has been provided. The contents of the same are as under:

The Commission queried the Respondent regarding such inordinate delay in
furnishing a reply to the Appellant, to which the Respondent could not
provide a cogent explanation.
The Appellant interjected that he requires the copy of approval letter from
the UGC regarding the resolution to write on the backside of the marksheet
of students of the Department of Water Engg. and Management that the
degree is the merger of two courses i.e B.Tech Civil Engineering and
M.Tech Water Engineering, to which the Respondent submitted that there is
no provision to wri

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent
has furnished a reply with respect to the instant RTI Application to the
Appellant, the same is not categorical and there has been an inordinate delay
in furnishing the same. The Commission takes grave exception to the above
laxities on part of the concerned CPIO and strictly admonishes him for not
attending the instant RTI Application in a categorical manner and within the
stipulated time frame.
Be that as it may, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to
furnish a categorical point wise reply with respect to the instant RTI
Application to the Appellant within the time frame of 15 days from the date
of receipt of thi

Central University of Jharkhand, VillageCheri-Manatu, P.O.- Kamre, P.S.- Kanke,


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 18.09.2021 seeking
information on the following one point:

The Assistant Registrar (Accounts) Trade bill & CPIO, Banaras Hindu
University, Office of the Registrar (Finance) Trade Bill Section vide letter
dated 27.10.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

The CPIO & Deputy Registrar (Accounts-I), R.O Finance, Banaras Hindu
University, vide letter dated 20.11.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/655891

Page 3 of 5

The Appellant stated that he did not receive the requisite information with
respect to status/action taken on his claim of TA Bill amounting to Rs.
1600/-  dated 17.02.2018. He further added that he is not able to claim
subsequent TA Bills as the above bill has not been approved till date.
The Respondent submitted that a reply with respect to the instant RTI
Application has already been provided to the Appellant wherein the
Appellant has been informed to furnish the requisite details of the said bill so
that the relevant information can be provided to the Appellant. He further
added that a letter dated 01.06.2018 has also been enclosed along with the
reply dated 20.11.2021 wherein the Appellant has been informed that the TA
Bill of the Appellant has been sent to the PIC Office.
The Commission queried the Respondent whether revised reply with respect
to the instant RTI Application can be provided to the Appellant thereby
intimating him the latest status/action taken on his

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/655891

Page 4 of 5

has furnished a reply with respect to the instant RTI Application, the
Appellant raised dissatisfaction with the same.
In view of the above, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent
to furnish a revised categorical reply with respect to the instant RTI
Application to the Appellant thereby intimating him the latest status/action
taken on his claim of TA Bill dated 17.02.2018, within the time frame of 15
days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the event Respondent is required to seek further assistance from any other
office/officer for compliance with the ab


Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant,
the Commission observes that not furnishing the information has seriously affecting
the legitimate interest of the Appellant. Therefore, the Commission directs the
Respondent to re-examine the RTI application again and furnish a detailed and an
updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of
transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period
of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the
Commission.
CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/657815

Page 2 of 4

Further the Commission takes adverse note of the absence of the CPIO which
amounts to contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It is evident that
wilful obstruction in the flow of information has been caused by his absence. The
Commission, therefore, instructs the CPIO, to show-cause why action should not be
taken for this misconduct and negligence and also directs him to explain why
penalty of Rs. 2,500/- should not be taken against him as per Section 20(1) of the
RTI Act, 2005, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission observes that adequate
information qua the instant RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant on
06.09.2021 in compliance with the direction passed the Hon’ble Commission vide
order dated 12.08.2021 and the Commission is further convinced with the
explanation provided by the concerned Respondent for his absence on the previous
date of hearing and accordingly the Commission deems it fit to drop the show
cause proceedings in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the Show Cause proceedings are hereby dropped.


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 06.09.2021 seeking
information on the following three points:

The CPIO vide online reply dated 10.09.2021, informed to the Appellant as
under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.09.2021, informed as under:

CIC/DHEDU/A/2021/661570

Page 3 of 6

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the
Respondent with respect to the instant RTI Application as no information
has been provided by them till date.
The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant
RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant wherein it has been
informed to the Appellant that requisite information with respect to point 1
& 3 cannot be provided to the Appellant because the averred matter is under
consideration and point 2 of the RTI Application is vague and ambiguous.
Upon being queried by the Commission to substantiate the above stance the
Respondent submitted that the Board of Governor of NIT Hamirpur and a
retired judge are looking into the alleged recruitment as the same falls within
the purview of NIT Hamirpur and as such the report is under consideration
of the BoG of NIT – Hamirpur. Therefore no information with respect to
report of the fact finding committee can be provided a

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has
attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame by
furnishing a categorical reply to the Appellant. Further, the Respondent has
provided adequate explanation during hearing to substantiate the stance of
the CPIO and the Commission finds no infirmity with the same. Moreover,
the Appellant is contesting on the veracity of the matter, which is beyond the
adjudicatory powers of the Commission. Hence, the Commission finds no
further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.

Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan,


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 16.08.2021 seeking
information on the following two points:

The CPIO vide online dated 27.08.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.08.2021. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.09.2021, informed as under:

The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the
Respondent with respect to point no.1 of the RTI Application as they have
arbitrarily denied the averred information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI
Act.
The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant
RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant thereby providing the
disclosable information to the Appellant. The Appellant interjected that the
averred report has not been provided till date as many recruitments have
been during the tenure of the said director and no action has been taken with
respect to the averred recruitments so far.
The Respondent further submitted that as far as the contention of the
Appellant regarding the averred report is concerned, the same cannot be
furnished to the Appellant as on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the
said committee, the Board of Governor of NIT Hamirpur is looking into the
alleged irregularities in recruitmen

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent
has attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame,
information only with respect to point 2 of the RTI Application has been
provided and the information with respect to point 1 has been denied under
section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the Respondent has
provided adequate explanation to substantiate the above denial of
information and the Commission upholds the stance of the Respondent.
Moreover, the Appellant is contesting on the veracity of the matter, which is
beyond the adjudicatory powers of the Commission.  Hence the Commission
finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 04.10.2021 seeking
information on the following four points:

The Appellant stated that no information with respect to the instant RTI
Application has been furnished by the Respondent till date and he
specifically requested for information on point 1, 2 & 3 of the RTI
Application.
The Respondent submitted that no information with respect to the instant
RTI Application is available on record, however the RTI Application has
been transferred to the CPIO-Rajiv Gandhi South Campus for furnishing the
information if they have any. Thereafter the CPIO-Rajiv Gandhi South
Campus, transfer the RTI Application for point 3 to the CPIO-Computer
Centre but for point 1 &2 he transferred it back to the CPIO & Assistant
Registrar (Academic). He further added that a reply has been furnished by
the CPIO-Computer Centre vide letter dated 28.10.2021 wherein it has been

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/662804

Page 4 of 7

informed to the Appellant that no information with respect to point 3 is
available and the contents of the same are as under:

T

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent
has attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame,
the Appellant raised contention for information on point 1, 2 & 3 of the RTI
Application.
In view of the above and in the light of the submissions made during hearing
the Commission deems it fit to direct Shri. Prashant Kumar Sinha, CPIO &
Assistant Registrar (Academics), Banaras Hindu University to provide an
opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the relevant records with respect to
point 1, 2 & 3 of the RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time
duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. Copy of
documents, if desired, should

/Deputy Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Rajiv Gandhi South Campus,


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 30.10.2021 seeking
information on the following four points:
1) “Provide the copy of notification for the constitution of committee
under the chairmanship of Director, Institute of Agricultural
Sciences dated 09.11.2020 which is constituted by the order of
Vice Chancellor based on the applicant (Dr Rajesh Kumar,
Assistant Professor, RGSC) request letter dated 01.10.2019 (as per
enclosed letter).
2) Provide the copy of above committee report.
3) Provide copy of ECR No. 205 dated 31.08.2010 for the New
proposed faculty at RGSC.
4) Provide the name of FACULTY as per BHU STATUTE to which
the applicant Dr Rajesh Kumar (Employee ID 20703, Assistant
Professor, Proposed Department of Applied Agriculture, RGSC)
belongs/ appointed.”

The Appellant stated that no information with respect to point 2 & 4 of the
RTI Application has been received. He further contested for the refund of
Rs. 2/- as the second page of information with respect to point 4 is not
relevant.
The Respondent submitted that the requisite information with respect to the
instant RTI Application as available on record has been furnished to the
Appellant vide letter dated 27.11.2021 wherein the Appellant has been

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/662814

Page 4 of 6

informed to deposit the requisite fee for information on point 1 & 4 of the
RTI Application and the Appellant has been further informed that the
information on point 2 & 3 of the RTI Application is not available.
Thereafter, upon receiving of the requisite documentation fee from the
Appellant, the information on point 1 & 4 of the RTI Application i.e copy of
notification dated 09.11.2020 and list of faculties has been provided to the
Appellant vide letter dated 29.11.2021

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has
attended the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame by

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/662814

Page 5 of 6

furnishing the requisite information as available on record. However, the
Appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with respect to point 2 & 4 of the
RTI Application.
In view of the above and in order to allay the apprehensions of the Appellant
the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to revisit points 2 & 4
of the RTI Application and furnish a revised categorical reply for the same
to the Appellant within the time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order. In the event Respondent i

/Deputy Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, RTI Cell, Ajagara, Varanasi, U.P -221005


The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 10.10.2021 seeking
information on the following four points:
“I need following information under RTI Act 2005 regarding letters
written by applicant to various authorities of Banaras Hindu University
for necessary action (Annexures 1-4). Please provide point-wise
information and in online mode only.
1) A letter written by applicant Rajesh Kumar (Assistant Prof,
Applied Agriculture/GPB) to Prof. A. K. Tripathi (Faculty of Law),
and then Chairman, Teachers Grievance Committee, BHU on
dated 31.07.2019 (Copy enclosed, Annexure 1, RGSC Dispatch
Diary no. 663). Provide the copies of all actions/communications
took in this regard.
2) A letter written by applicant Rajesh Kumar to the Director,
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, B

The Appellant stated that the information with respect to point 2-4 of the
RTI Application has not been provided by the Respondent till date.
The Respondent submitted that for information with respect to point2-4 of
the RTI Application a reply has been furnished to the Appellant by Shri. K.G

CIC/BANHU/A/2021/663075

Page 4 of 6

Suresh (Vice Chancellors Office) vide letter dated 27.10.2021 wherein the
Appellant has been informed that averred letter dated 31.07.2019 &
01.08.2019 has been sent to the Director. The contents of the letter dated
27.10.2021 are as under:

Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that the
averred letter is still with the Director, Institute of Agricultural Science for
necessary action.
The Respondent further submitted that a reply has also been provided to the
Appellant vide letter dated 06.12.2021 wherein the remarks of Director,
Institute of Agricultural Science has given a reply that ‘File in the le

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent
has furnished a reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame, the
Appellant has expressed dissatisfaction that the averred letter wherein the
views/remarks of the concerned authority is recorded has not been provided.
In view of the above and in the light of the submissions made during hearing
the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent to furnish the averred
letter with views/remarks of the concerned authority, to the Appellant within
the time frame of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.


The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the omission of the CPIO
in intimating the factum of non-availability of Appellant’s complaint after an
inordinate delay. The said omission of the CPIO amounts to causing unwarranted
obstruction to the Appellant’s right to information and is a grave violation of the
provisions of the RTI Act. Now, therefore, the CPIO is directed to send her
written explanation to show-cause as to why the factual information was not
provided to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. The
said written explanation of the CPIO along with supporting documents, if any,
CIC/CBSED/A/2020/685901
Page 2 of 4

shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Now, considering the prayer of Appellant, he is advised to provide a copy of the
averred grievance/complaint dated 31st Dec. 2019 to the CPIO via email and/or
by post under intimation to the Commission. Upon receipt of the copy of the said
letter, the CPIO is directed to procure the relevant available information from the
concerned record holder indicating towards the action taken report on the said
grievance and provide the same directly to the Appellant free of cost. The said
information should be provided by the CPIO within 15 days of such receipt and a
compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission immediately
thereafter.

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings
during the hearing, the Commission observes that adequate information qua the
instant RTI Application has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated
25.10.2021 and the Commission is further convinced with the explanation
provided by the Respondent for the delay occurred in providing the same and
accordingly show cause proceedings are hereby dropped.


Considering the facts of the case, the submissions made by both the parties and to
provide a fair and reasonabie opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties,
the Commission directs the Registrar, CIC to also issue notice of hearing to DCIT
(Exemptions), Ghaziabad and the Third Party i.e. S.J.S. Public School under
Section 19( ) of the RTI Act, 2005 in addition to the Complainant and the
Page 2 of 10
Respondent and fix the next date of hearing in the matter within a period of 03
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Note: Subsequently, the Registrar, CIC vide its letter dated O4.O7.2O17 issued
a notice for hearing on 25.07.2017. However, the afore-mentioned notice was
not served on the third parties. Subsequently, the Registrar, CIC, vide its
letter dated O6.O8.2OL7 issued a fresh notice of hearing to all concerned
parties including the third party to appear for the hearing on O6.O9.2OL7.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on O6.O9.2OL7I
The following were presen

section 8
Section 8
Section 19
Section 8(t) of the RTI Act
Section 8(1)(i)
section 8(1)


Hearing both the parties and on perusal of the records and adverting to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Commission feels that in order to ascertain more clarity and
reasons, a show cause notice may be issued to the then CPIO and the present CPIO as to why
penal action should not be initiated against them in accordance with the provisions of the RTI
Act, 2005 for misleading the Commission with the correct identity of the Customs Official where
information was sought by the Complainant. Therefore, the Commission instructs Mr. Sujith P.
Sompur, the then CPIO and Dy. Commissioner, Air Cargo Complex and the present CPIO Mr.
Ashutosh Kumar, Dy. Commissioner of Customs and CPIO, Air Cargo Complex to explain as to
why penal action should not be initiated against them as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Dy.
Commissioner of Customs and CPIO, Air Cargo Complex is also directed to in


The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.12.2019 seeking the following
information:

X.
The Commission, at the outset, takes serious note of the absence of
Complainant, Respondent No. 1 (PIO, O/O RCS, New Delhi), Respondent No. 2
(YHAI) and Respondent No. 5 (PIO, NDMC) during hearing, despite service of
hearing notice in advance. As a matter of fact, no written submission has been
filed by the parties concerned seeking exemption and/or any request for
adjournment in the matter.
XI.
Further, perusal of the appellant’s request for impleading DoPT as a party
to the matter is found unsubstantiated on grounds of law as well as facts, hence,
the same is disallowed.
XII.
In the absence of concerned parties, the Commission is not in a position
to decide the peculiar issue for which this Division Bench has been convened. In
view of this and in the interest of arriving at a reasoned and legally sustainable
conclusion, the Commission adjourns the matter and directs as under:
(a) Respondent No. 2 (YHAI) shall file comprehensive written submissions within
four we


12. The Commission observed that by and large the premise of this
Compiaint is notional in nature, v.,her€ the Complainant
'believes' that the disclosure policy of the Respondent public
Authorlty could disrupt the access to information und.er RTI Act,
2005, It is well established at this stage that at no point in time
has the Complajnalt attempted to obtain or access the
infonnation lrom RBI or could cite any instance where RBI had
denied the information to him. lt was also pertinent to note that
the relief that the Complajnart had sought was direction lrom
the Commission for striking down the poiicy from RBI website,
he specihcally stated that he was not seeking direction for
imposition of penalty. Fufther, the contentions of
the
Respondent could not be ignored that this policy had been on
their website for about 6 years ald Complainart .vvas raising
doubts without a:ry basis and was ignorant of the fact that the
policy was a result of Comrnission,s directions itself. The
Compla:inal


"a. The issue, namety, to dectare DLTA as a pubtic authority is not onty important
but a sensitive one & it has also far reaching repercussions. Thus, it needs to be
decided by the larger bench of this Commission.
b. Further, the maintainabitity of the instant Comptaint fited under section 18(1)
of the RTI 2005 for such retief which dehors section 20 of the RTI Act 2005."
1"
?..
The Chief lnformation Commissioner constituted a
lnformation Commissioners: -
division bench of the fottowing
Shri Sharat Sabharwat.
Shri Sudhir Bhargava.
Hearine on 16.1 1.2016
2.
The Division Bench heard the matter on 16.11.2016 .
Advocate Shri Rohit Jain speaking on behatf of the Comptainant stated that DLTA is
covered under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He submitted that DLTA is an affitiate of
Att lndia Lawn Tennis Association. An MOU was signed on 27.5.2010 between
Government of lndia through Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, The Dethi Lawn

section 18(1)
section 20 of the RTI Act
section 2(h) of the RTI Act
Section 2
section 2(h) of RTI Act
Section 2(h)
section 2(h)


1. The Commission has gone through the case records as well as the written
submissions of both the parties and based on the proceedings during the
hearing observes that the Respondent admits that the Hon’ble Apex Court had
held that DSGMC is a public authority in December 2016. Notwithstanding the
applicability of the CIC decisions dated 10.02.2010 and 07.10.2009 passed in
the
Second
Appeal
nos.
CIC/SGA/2009/003014
&
CIC/SG/A/2009/000013/4221, in the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/127006

Page 11 of 18

the abovementioned CIC decisions have not been set aside so far and thus
attained finality in law.

2. On the contrary it is also an admitted position that the Delhi High Court had
declared DGSMC as a public authority. The Delhi High Court upon dealing in
detail with all the relevant aspects and about the applicability of the RTI Act on
the DGSMC, decided the matters of i) DELHI SIKH GURUDWARA
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE & ORS. V


“The word ‘control’, as we have seen, was used for the first time in the
Constitution and it is accompanied by the word ‘vest’ which is a strong
word. It shows that the High Court is made the sole custodian of the
control over the judiciary. Control, therefore, is not merely the power to
arrange the day-to-day working of the court but contemplates disciplinary
jurisdiction over the presiding Judge…. In our judgment, the control
which is vested in the High Court is a complete control subject only to the
power of the Governor in the matter of appointment (including dismissal
and removal) and posting and promotion of District Judges. Within the
exercise of the control vested in the High Court, the High Court can hold
enquiries, impose punishments other than dismissal or removal, …”
32.
The above position has been reiterated by this Court in Chief
Justice of Andhra Pradesh and others v. L.V.A. Dixitulu and others
Page 18 of 31
(1979) 2 SCC 34. In Corporation of the City of Nagp


1.
It is pertinent to mention here that despite of our due notice, neither Complainant nor
the respondents appeared either in person or through someone, duly authorized by
them before the Commission to press their cases. However, the Commission feels that
complainant must have appeared, in such situations, to press her complaint before the
Commission, after all, it is her case to be pursued strongly but complainant is also
absent deliberately, despite of our due notice. Thus, it shows the intention of the

Page 2 of 2

complainant that she is not interested, at all, in pursuing her own case before the
Commission.
2.
In view of the above, the Commission feels that no fruitful purpose would be served
by proceeding in such cases. Thus, the Commission is of the considered view that it
would be appropriate and even justified to dismiss the case. Therefore, it is hereby
dismissed.
The complaint is dismissed accordingly.

        Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 30/01/2025 seeking the following
information:
“Kindly do the needful to know about the status of application with regard to Dr
Ambedkar scheme for social integration through Inter Caste marriages,
submitted by me and my husband MR. Krishnadas P V on 26th of June 2019
through the District Development Office for Scheduled caste, Thrissur.”

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC
Respondent: Sudhir Hilslyan Editor/ CPIO and Taulavesh participated in the
hearing on VC
The Appellant reiterated the facts of the case and further submits that information
sought has not been provided. The Respondent submits that they have not
received the application.

Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of
case records, directs the Respondent to revisit the instant RTI Application and
provide a revised reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application inclusive of
the updated status of the application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post,
within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance
report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within 7 days thereafter.
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to
some other Branch/Department, then the CPIO should procure and provide the
same to the Appellant. In doing so, CPIO must make sure that information which
is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the
appellant and same must be redacted as per section 10 of the RTI Act. No further
action lies. The Appeal stands disposed of.

section 10 of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 24/03/2025 seeking the
following information:
“I have rendered 24 years 3 months and 21 days length of services, whereas as
per PPO my length of service mentioned was 13 years 10 months and 27 days.
I have submitted time to time my length of service details with respective PF
offices as well and I was assured and given to understand that the same have
taken note of it and the same will be taken care of at the time of pension. I have
approached RPFC, Karnal vide grievance no HRKNL/E/2024/08454 dt. 9th Dec

The following were present:-
Complainant: Present on VC
Respondent: Milin Deolkar RPFC-II/CPIO participates in the hearing on VC

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2025/619785                            Page 3 of 4

The Complainant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that his
grievance is not being resolved. The Respondent submits that the RTI application
dated 24.03.2025 was received by this office on 02.04.2025 was examined and it
was observed that the applicant was primarily seeking redressal of grievance
rather than "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The
applicant in his RTI did not seek any specific document, information or record.
Accordingly, the reply to application was appropriately given by CPIO vide order
dated 21.04.2025 and copy was forwarded to the concerned grievance section for
necessary action. He further submits that he will resolve the complainant’s
grievance in the shortest time.

The Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of
proceedings during the hearing observes that the query sought by the complainant
is in the nature of a grievance and not information as defined section 2(f) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005. The Commission notes that appropriate reply was
provided to the complainant by the CPIO. The Commission therefore does not
find any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO.

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:

"...2

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
section 2(f)
Section 18 of the RTI Act
Section 18
Section 20
section 18
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Thane


The Complainant has sought the following information:

The complainant requested the Commission for imposition of penalty on the
CPIO for not providing an appropriate response to him. However he failed to
attend the hearing of the Commission despite due service of the notice of
hearing delivered to him on 15.05.2023 vide speed post no. ED365694655IN.
The CPIO reiterated the averments made in her latest undated written
submissions. She stated that a proper response was given to the complainant
at the first appellate stage.

On a perusal of the facts of the case and after hearing the submissions of the
CPIO, the Commission observed that the reply was given to the complainant
vide FAA’s order dated 30.05.2022. In the view of the Commission, the said
order was suitable and a point-wise reply was given to the appellant. The
Commission does not find any deficiency in the said letter and accordingly
upholds it.
Regarding the inaction on the part of the CPIO, the CPIO feigned ignorance
during the hearing and failed to furnish any proper explanation for not replying
earlier to the complainant. Therefore, the Com
For all the reasons recorded above, no adverse action against the CPIO is
warranted under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005.  The
complaint is disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा
वनजा
वनजा
वनजा एन
एन
एन
एन. सरना
सरना
सरना
सरना)

Section 18 of the RTI Act
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 13/04/2025 seeking the
following information:
“Please provide the action taken report of the Hon’ble Chairman, NCST
pertaining to the letter having Ref No. KSLEF.GS.NCST/02/2024 dated
27/11/2024 sent by the State General Secretary of Karnataka State Ex-
Legislators Forum Vidhana Soudha.”

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Absent
Neither the complainant nor the Respondent has availed the opportunity to
participate in the hearing despite due notice of hearing.

In the light of the facts of the case, and the material on record the commission
notes that the appropriate CPIO Reply and the FAA order is not on record. It is
further noted that the Respondent is absent.

The Commission would like to put emphasis on the fact that Right to Information
Act, 2005, is a powerful instrument designed to empower citizens, ensure
transparency in governance, promote accountability of public authorities, and
ultimately serve as a tool for delivering justice by enabling access to information
that is vital for informed participation in democracy. Any undue delay,
negligence, or failure in complying with its provisions not only defeats this
objective but also erodes public trust in the system. The Commission is therefore
duty-bound to ensure strict adherence to the statutory timelines and processes, so
that the RTI Act continues to function as an effective means of upholding the rule
of law, fostering good governance, and protecting the fundamental r

National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Bhopal


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 19/02/2025 seeking the
following information:
“Kindly provide information as per attached sheet…”
2. The CPIO reply dated 09/03/2026 is taken on record.
3. The First Appeal Order by the first Appellate Authority is not on Record.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant filed the Instant
Complaint on 20/05/2025.

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Rajesh Jaryal PS/CPIO and Nandan Singh PA participated in the
hearing in person.

The Complainant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing
despite due notice of hearing however withdrew his case. The Respondent
reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the complainant has
withdrawn his case.

Commission notes that the Complainant has withdrawn his case. Hence the case
stands closed as withdrawn. The Complaint stands disposed of.

O/o Chief Commissioner for Persons, With Disabilities, New Delhi


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 30/03/2025 seeking the following
information:
“…Please furnish the following information regarding the possibility of reducing
the EPF contribution:
1. Is it permissible under EPFO regulations to reduce the EPF contribution rate
for an employee while working in the same organization? If yes, what are the
guidelines and prerequisites? Please provide the information at the earliest…”

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: G Vittobha CPIO/AFFC participated in the hearing on VC
The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite
due notice of hearing. The Respondent submits that the CPIO had received the
RTI application dated 30.03.2025 wherein the applicant sought information
whether it is permissible to reduce the EPF contribution rate while continuing in
the same organization and the related guidelines. The CPIO promptly replied vide
letter dated 16.05.2025 stating that reduction of EPF contribution rate by either
employer or employee is not permissible under the EPF Act and the statutory rate

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/628047                              Page 3 of 3

of 12% is mandatory for both, while also quoting the relevant provision of Section
6 of the Act. The information furnished was complete and correct.

Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing,
observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005
has been provided by the Respondent. No legal infirmity is found in the response
furnished by the Respondent. No further intervention is warranted in this case.
The Appeal stands disposed of.

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bengaluru


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 22/11/2024 seeking the following
information:
“1. Applicability of Labour Welfare Fund Deduction: a) is the deduction of the
Labour Welfare Fund, as prescribed by the relevant Labour Welfare Fund Act or
rules, applicable to employees holding supervisory or managerial positions?
 b) Please provide the relevant provisions of the law or guidelines that specify
whether supervisors and managers are included under the purview of Labour
Welfare Fund deduction.

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC
Respondent: Anand Kumar Section Officer and Dr. Sandeep Kumar Chaurasia
Welfare Administrator participated in the hearing in person.
The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the
information sought has not been provided. The Respondent submits that the RTI
application dated 22.11.2024 pertained to Labour Welfare Fund deductions and

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/DGLHQ/A/2025/628375                             Page 3 of 4

related provisions under the Labour Welfare Fund Act/Rules and DGLW is not
the competent authority for State Labour Welfare Funds, which are administered
by respective State Labour Welfare Boards. The available information was duly
provided to the appellant vide reply dated 20.01.2025 within the stipulated time.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing,
the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions
of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes
that ‘information’ as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such
material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore,
the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create
or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.

Commission deems it expedient to highlight that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of
India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011]
has held as under:

“11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with
the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not
enjoin a p

section 2(f)
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

Directorate General of Labour & Welfare, HQ, New Delhi


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 10/05/2025 seeking the following
information:
“1. How many YP-I and YP-II exams were conducted from 2020 to May 2025 for
your Head Quarters, Regional Stations, Research Centres and KVKs.
2. Notifications published for each YP-I and YP-II recruitment from 2020 to May
2025 at your Head Quarters, Regional Stations, Research Centres and KVKs.

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Bhadrakumar CPIO participated in the hearing on VC

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/CTCRI/A/2025/628929                              Page 3 of 4

The Appellant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing despite
due notice of hearing. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further
submits that the examination/Interview for YP-l and YP-2 were conducted
according to the need of research projects and were undertaken by the Principal
Investigator of the respective research project. These projects are of different
tenure. Many projects have been closed and also Principal Investigators were
changed/retired from time to time. The records were maintained by the Principal
Investigators. So as to collect the required information of such scattered form will
disproportionately divert the resources as there is a large staff shortage at the
institute.

In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submissions
made during hearing, the Commission observes that that an appropriate response
as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent.
Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and
self-explanatory. Commission notes that ‘information’ as defined in the section
2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records
of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an
obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available
information and then furnish it to an applicant. Hence, no further intervention of
the Commission is required in the instant matter. The Appeal stands disposed
of.

Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (ICAR), Thiruvananthapuram


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2024 (offline) seeking
the following information:

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/105396                                                                           Page 2 of 4
“The applicant request to kindly provide the below noted information towards
Inquiry on CVC complaint reference 15653/2023 against Dr.Anju Nanda, CMO In
charge, Central Government Health Scheme, Wellness Centre-2, Lucknow under RTI
act-2005:-
(a) Present status of Inquiry in afore said Vigilance complaint.
(b) Present place of posting of Dr.Anju Nanda against whom the complaint was
made.
(c) Daily status report on my letter dated 07-10-2024 which has also been forwarded
by Dr. S.P. Singh, CMO (SAG), CGHS, WC-8, CPMG Office compound, Hazratganj,
Lucknow-226001.

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Rohan Bajpai, CMO, attended the hearing through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply on the basis of available
records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 27.03.2025,
stating as under:
“A) INQUIRY HAS BEEN DONE.
B) PRESENT PLACE OF POSTING OF DR ANJU NANDA IS, DGHS (NEW DELHI).
C) During the inquiry all the facts mentioned by the complainant were cross
checked and enquired, no evidence of corruption was found.
Complaint made by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav regarding corruption and malpractice
against Dr. Anju Nanda, is without any substance, no corruption and malpractice
is involved in her working procedure, she rendered her medical services to the
best of her ability. The complaint is baseless, unwarranted & unfounded as Dr.
Anju Nanda performed her
duties honestly and without any ill motive.

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/10539

Section 18 of the RTI Act
Section 18
Section 19
Section 7
Section 20 of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2024 (offline) seeking
the following information:
"SECL के ᳇ारा भूिम अिधᮕहण के संबंध मᱶ कᳱ जाने वाली कायᭅवाही, िनयम व िविध कᳱ पूणᭅ
जानकारी मᱶ ᮧदान करᱶ।”

CIC/SECFL/C/2025/106970                                                                           Page 2 of 4

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Vishal Kumar Aggarwal, DPIO-cum-Senior Manager and Shri Anil
Kumar Mehta, APIO-cum-Assistant Manager, attended the hearing through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
Shri Vishal Kumar Aggarwal, DPIO-cum-Senior Manager, submitted that the
relevant and available information containing 10 pages has been given to
the Complainant vide letter dated 15.07.2025, stating as under:
“महोदय,
उपरोƅ संदभŊ मŐ डी̱ड पी.आई.ओ / नोडल अिधकारी (भूिम.एवं राजˢ)
िवŵामपुर Ɨेũ के Ȫारा भेजी गई जानकारी पũ कमांक 3124 कुल 10 पेज की
मूल ŝप मŐ संलư कर आपके ओर Ůेिषत िक जा रही है। यह आपके सूचनाथŊ
हेतु Ůेिषत है।।
संलư उपरोƅानुसार, (कुल 10 पेज)”
7.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vishwanath Sah, CPIO,
vide letter dated 30.01.2026, stating as under:
“आवेदक Ȫारा चाही गयी जानकारी समय से नहीं Ůाɑ Šई थी। इस संबंध मŐ
कई बार पũाचार िकया गया अंततः िड̱ड पी.आई.ओ ŵी िवसाल अŤवाल Ȫारा
पũ Ţमांक GM/BSPR


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:
“Responding to request for Providing certified / scanned copy of order (s) if any
issued by Jayant Project / Area of NCL for releasing of employees for supervising

CIC/NCFLT/C/2025/108050                                                                           Page 2 of 7
& monitoring or otherwise for organizing /helping the activities related to Durga
Puja Celebrations in October, 2024 vide NCFLT/R/E/24/00726, the CPIO/DPIO
replied as under
Approval was taken from the competent authority and internal communication
was done accordingly. However, no order was issued.
In light of above I need information as under
1. Provide certified/scanned copy of acclaimed approval ta

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sinha, CPIO-cum-GM, attended the hearing through VC.

CIC/NCFLT/C/2025/108050                                                                           Page 3 of 7
5.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent has wrongly denied the
information under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.
6.
The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the directions passed
by the FAA, a suitable reply has been given to the Complainant vide letter
dated 11.03.2025, stating as under:
“आवेिदक ŵी देवराज फोगाट के Ȫारा चाही गई जानकारी िजसकी जानकारी संलư है।
1.Point no 1&2 Information can't be disclosed under 8 (1) (D) I nformation
including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the
disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless
the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;”
7.
A


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.11.2024(offline) seeking
the following information:
“Under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a citizen has a right
to seek such information from a public authority which is held by the public
authority, or which is held under its control.
RTI application filed on
: 13.11.2024
CPIO replied on
: 19.12.2024
First appeal filed on
: 27.12.2024
First Appellate Authority’s order : 30.01.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 20.03.2025

CIC/DOHRE/A/2025/109951

Page 2 of 5

This right includes inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes,
extracts or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified
samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the
publi

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present along with Ms. Shantwana Dixit, attended the hearing in
person.
Respondent: Shri M.L. Sharma, Director, Ms. Sreelatha A.K., Under Secretary
and Dr. Masarat, Scientist ‘C’, attended the hearing in person.

CIC/DOHRE/A/2025/109951

Page 4 of 5

5.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant
information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6.
The Respondent submitted that a suitable and pointwise reply qua the
instant RTI Application has been given by the CPIO vide letter dated
19.12.2024. Dr. Masarat, Scientist ‘C’, submitted that with respect to
point No. 1 of the RTI Application, no Quarterly progress report has been
submitted by the host institute. She added that with respect to point No.
2 and 3 of the RTI Application, no specific amount was allotted for the
publication of study. However, the Department of Health Research
funded the research project entitled "Neurobehavioral a

9.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a
suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act and based on
available records has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated

CIC/DOHRE/A/2025/109951

Page 5 of 5

19.12.2024. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the
instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)