The appellant has filed RTI application dated 22/04/2025 seeking the following
information:
“Pune District Co-operative Milk producres Fedration ltd. Katraj Pune 411046
PF account no MH 13972 UN no -********7376 PPO no- PUPUN****5575
Regional PF office Pune rejected the POHW application without giving specific
reason.”
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 29/04/2025 stated as:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Surbhi Drivedi APFC/ Authorized Representative of the CPIO
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 present second appeal
arises out of the RTI application dated 22.04.2025 filed by Shri Popat

Second Appeal/ Complaint No.  CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/627026                             Page 3 of 4

Ramchandra Thorat seeking information regarding rejection of his PoHW
application without specific reason. The office provided a detailed reply vide
letter No. MH/PN/RTI Cell/Case No.48/2025-26 dated 29.04.2025, furnishing all
available information including details of accepted/rejected applications, demand
letters issued, DDs received, PPOs issued, total contributions and arrears for Un-
exempted organisation – Pune District Milk Product, Pune, and specifically
clarifying the reason for rejectio

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. Thus information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms
of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In the given circumstances, no further
intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The
Appeal stands disposed of.

section 6(1) of RTI Act
section 2(f) of RTI Act
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Pune


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 26/11/2024 seeking the following
information:
“…1. Provide a copy of appointment order, joining order, and all copies of
agreement or related things.
2. (Krishna japur)
3. Provide a copy of termination letter of Krishna japur.

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC
Respondent: Mathew J CPIO/Senior Administrative Officer participated in the
hearing on VC
The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the
information sought has not been provided. Information sought has been provided
in the written submission dated 13/05/2026.

In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission
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. Thus information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms
of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NBAII/A/2025/627504                            Page 3 of 3

It is further directed to the Respondent to send the copy of the written submission
inclusive of all the attached documents to the Appellant free of cost via speed
post and email within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and
accordingly send the compliance report to the commission within 7 days
thereafter.

No further intervention of the commission is war

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

ICAR National Bureau of Agricultural, Insect Resources, Bengaluru


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 02/04/2025 seeking the following
information:
“In-Flight Service and Aircraft Condition (6) what inspections did DGCA
conduct from 2015 to 2025 to check in-flight services & aircraft interiors. What
were the outcomes? List non-compliant airlines & actions taken…”
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 13/05/2025 stated as:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Hema Saini CPIO/Assistant Director, Devyendu P Mehta CPIO/
Deputy Director and Kundan Pandey CPIO/Assistant Director participated in the
hearing in Person
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 Surveillance Programme and corresponding Surveillance
Findings (outcomes) from the year 2015 onwards are available on the DGCA
website. Inspections have been conducted in accordance with the approved
Surveillance Program. However, the airline-wise data and the actions taken
thereon are extensive in nature and are maintained partly in electronic form and
partly in physical records. The records are maintained in accordance with the
Record Retention Schedule for Records Relating to Substantive Functions of the
Directorate General of Civil Aviation. As per the extant policy. Surveillan

Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing,
directs the CPIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect available
and relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually
decided date & time duly intimated to him by the PIO telephonically and in
writing.

In
case
relevant
information/documents
pertains
to
some
other
branch/department, then same must be procured from them and produced during
the said inspection.

Further, copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should
be provided upon payment of the prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012.
Commission’s directions should be complied within 15 days from the date of
receipt of this order and compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the
Commission within 7 days thereafter. Further, CPIO must make sure no
information which is exempted under RTI Act, 2005 is produced for the averred
inspection or later furnished to the ap

Section 7(9) of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2025 (online) seeking
the following information:

CIC/DHEDU/C/2025/606021/MSD&E                                                                Page 2 of 4
“1. Send the certified copy of the advertisement for the posts of assistant
professor (on contract), 2017 for engineering colleges under the TEQIP
Project.
2. Send the certified copy of the result of the above advertisement with the
subject-wise name list of selected candidates.
3. Send the institute allotment list for the selected candidates under the
above recruitment.”

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.

Respondent: Absent.
5.
Both the parties remained absent in the hearing.

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


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.11.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:

CIC/ICOMR/C/2025/608202                                                                           Page 2 of 5
“Under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, I kindly request the following information
regarding ankylosing spondylitis research, treatment, and related issues based on
studies, trials, or data available with ICMR and its affiliated hospitals:
1. The total number of studies conducted or funded by ICMR on ankylosing
spondylitis over the past five years.
2. Details of ongoing or completed research projects focusing on the treatment,
management, or complications of ankylosing spondylitis.
3. Information regarding the prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis among the In

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Jaya Singh Kshatri, CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.

CIC/ICOMR/C/2025/608202                                                                           Page 3 of 5
6.
The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application and First Appeal
has not been received in the office at the initial stage and the same has
been received along with the hearing notice from the Commission. She
added that the Complainant in the instant RTI Application had sought
extensive data regarding research, treatment, clinical trials, and funding
related to Ankylosing Spondylitis. She clarifies that ICMR-Regional Medical
Research Centre (RMRC), Bhubaneswar, has not conducted, funded, or
been involved in any studies or clinical trials related to Ankylosing
Spondylitis. Furthermore, this regional center does not maintain
centralized data regarding ICMR-wide fundi


The Complainant has sought the following information regarding public
conveniences, drinking water facility and COVID protocol for passengers at
each Airport, in the following format:

The complainant submitted that he has not received any information.
The respondent reiterated that Nanded Airport Private Limited is not a public
authority. She further submitted that the delay in providing the reply was
inadvertent.

The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2022 had held that a citizen has a right to get
only such information from public authority which is held by it or which is held
under its control. Since Airports Authority of India (AAI) is providing only Air
Traffic Control (ATC) and Communication, Navigation &. Surveillance (CNS)
services at Nanded Airport, information sought by the appellant in his RTI
application is not available with AAI, Nanded. Further, Nanded Airport Private
Limited is not a public authority and the RTI application cannot be transferred
to them under section 6(3) of RTI, Act, 2005
The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section
18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if

3

the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an
unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section-18. Since records of
the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of
information on the


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2025 (online) seeking
the following information:

CIC/NCCLD/C/2025/609256                                                                           Page 2 of 4
“I hereby submit this request under the provisions of the Right to information act
2005, seeking the following details related to my grievance lodged through
CPGRAMS with the reference ID MCOAL/E/2024/0000992, which was filed on
20/09/2024.
Requested Information
Service Record: I requested a certified copy of the complete service record.
Provident Fund Details: Information regarding PF account, including contributions
made by both the employee and the employer during the course of his
employment.
Benefits Provided: A comprehensive list of all financial and non-

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Amit Mahato, PIO-cum-Area Manager, attended the hearing
through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the
Complainant in the instant RTI Application is personal information of third
party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI
Act. He added that the Complainant has also filed First Appeal on
09.02.2025 and the First Appellate Authority has adjudicated the same on
24.02.2025 upholding the CPIO reply.

Section 8
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 18.10.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:

CIC/NHAIN/C/2025/609873                                                                          Page 2 of 5
“1-What is the minimum distance prescribed between two toll plazas on national
highways?
2-Can toll tax collected by toll plazas operating within the prescribed minimum
distance limit be considered illegal collection?”

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. Pratiksha Jain, CPIO-cum- Manager Tech, attended the hearing
through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that information sought by the complainant
vide RTI application dated 18.10.2024 has been provided vide office letter
No. 34094/PIU-Agra/RTI/2025/772 dated 18.03.2025 and the same has
been placed on record. The relevant extract of the office letter No.
34094/PIU-Agra/RTI/2025/772 dated 18.03.2025 is as follows:
“Applicant Shri Jitendra Verma vide his online RTI application No.
NHAIN/R/E/24/05906 dated 08.11.2024 requested to provide information. This

CIC/NHAIN/C/2025/609873                                                                          Page 3 of 5
office vide reply dated 08.11.2024 informed the applicant that the "information
falls under category of creation of information and answering to hypothetical
questions which does not fall und


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2024 (offline) seeking
the following information:

CIC/ITILT/C/2025/610710                                                                           Page 2 of 5
“मᱹने आपको आरटीआई ऐ᭍ट 2005 कᳱ धारा 6 कᳱ उपधारा 1 (ए) एवं 2 के तहत
सूचना/अिभलेख कᳱ ᮧाि᳙ एवं धारा 2 (जे) के तहत आवेदन पᮢ मᱶ उि᭨लिखत ᮧकरण से
संबंिधत
सम᭭त
अिभलेखᲂ
के
िनरीᭃण
हेतु
आवेदन
पᮢ
संदभᭅ
सं᭎याः
एसएनटी/आरटीआई/एच-50216 ᳰदनांᳰकत 03.06. 2024 रिज᭭टडᭅ डाक से भेजा था। िजसके
संदभᭅ मᱶ आपने अभी तक हमᱶ न तो सूचना उपल᭣ध कराई है और न ही हमारे आवेदन पᮢ का
कोई उᱫर ही ᳰदया है। इसी संदभᭅ मᱶ आरटीआई ऐ᭍ट 2005 कᳱ धारा 6 कᳱ उप धारा 1 (ए)
एवं 2 के तहत िन᳜ िलिखत सूचना व अिभलेखᲂ कᳱ ᮧाि᳙ हेतु आवेदन शु᭨क के मद मᱶ ᱨपये
10/- का भारतीय पो᭭टल आडᭅर सं᭎याः 51 एफ 742161 इस आवेदन पᮢ के

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present though VC.
Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar Singh, Officer (HR), Legal.
5.
The Complainant stated that this case pertains to the same RTI application
for which second appeal was decided vide order CIC/ITILT/A/2025/609438
dated 15.04.2026 .
6.
The Respondent attended the hearing through VC and submitted that the
Appellant has filed the instant RTI application solely to seek the status of a
previous RTI application which had already been disposed of by the Hon'ble
Central Information Commission in a Second Appeal & Complaint bearing
No. CIC/ITILT/A/2024/622893 & CIC/ITILT/C/2024/623806, vide order
dated 21.03.2025.
7. A written submission has been received from PIO, Mankapur, Gonda, vide
letter dated 20.04.2026, stating as under:
“Most Respectfully Submitted:
1. The undersigned is the CPIO of IT! Limited, Mankapur Unit, Gonda (U.P.), the
Respondent Public Authority in the above second appeal filed by applicant Mг.
Satya N


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.02.2025 (online) seeking
the following information:
“I, SAMEER MOURYA, hereby seek information under the Right to Information Act,
2005 regarding the admissibility of the following medicines under the
Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS):

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/611568                                                                           Page 2 of 3
1. SESDERMA AZELAC LOTION
2. SESDERMA SEBOVALIS
3. Salisia KT
I kindly request the following information:
1. Are the above-mentioned medicines admissible under CGHS for reimbursement or
direct purchase?
2. If admissible, under which category or list do they fall?”

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Srinivas Murthy, Nodal Officer, attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that their office has neither received the instant
RTI Application nor received the First Appeal at the initial stage on the
online CGHS portal of Delhi. He apprised the Bench of the fact that the
Public Authority i.e., Central Government Health Scheme was inadvertently
opened by the DOPT and their office have sent many requests to the close
the abandoned portal. Upon receipt of the hearing notice from the
Commission, their office has received the RTI Application along with the
hearing notice form the Commission and a suitable reply based on available
records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 15.04.2026.
7.
A written submission has been received from CPIO, vide letter dated
15.04.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and

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


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2024 (offline) seeking
the following information:
“मᱹने आपको आरटीआई ऐ᭍ट 2005 कᳱ धारा 6 कᳱ उपधारा 1 (ए) एवं 2 के तहत
सूचना/अिभलेख कᳱ ᮧाि᳙ हेतु आवेदन पᮢ संदभᭅ सं᭎याः एसएनटी/आरटीआई/एच-50214

CIC/ITILT/C/2025/611674                                                                           Page 2 of 11
ᳰदनांᳰकत 21.02. 2024 रिज᭭टडᭅ डाक से भेजा था। िजसके संदभᭅ मᱶ आपने अभी तक हमᱶ न
तो सूचना उपल᭣ध कराई है और न ही हमारे आवेदन पᮢ का कोई उᱫर ही ᳰदया है। इसी
संदभᭅ मᱶ आरटीआई ऐ᭍ट 2005 कᳱ धारा 6 कᳱ उप धारा 1 (ए) एवं 2 के तहत िन᳜ िलिखत
सूचना व अिभलेखᲂ कᳱ ᮧाि᳙ हेतु आवेदन शु᭨क के मद मᱶ ᱨपये 10/- का भारतीय पो᭭टल
आडᭅर सं᭎या: 51 एफ 742162, इस आवेदन पᮢ के साथ संलᲨ कर रहा ᱠँ।
1. रिज᭭टडᭅ डाक से ᮧेिषत हमारे आवेदन पᮢ संदभᭅ सं᭎याः एसएनटी/आरटीआई/एच

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, CPIO-cum-Officer (HR, Legal and
disciplinary) attended the hearing through VC.
5.
The Complainant stated that this RTI dated 26.10.2024 was filed to seek
the status of earlier RTI dated 21.02.2024, and the matter with respect to
latter RTI was finally disposed of by CIC vide order dated 21.03.2025. The
complainant further stated that he has not received reply of first appeal
dated 07.01.2025.
6.
Upon enquiry, the Respondent submitted that because of large number of
appeals received in the office, FAA could not reply to the complainant.
7. A written submission has been received from appellant vide letter undated
and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is a
under:
“मननीया सूचना आयुƅ महोदया,
हमारी िशकायत फाइल संƥा CIC/ITILT/C/2025/6/1674 मŐ लगे संलưक । आवेदन
पũ संदभŊ संƥाः एसएनटी/आरटीआई/एच-50218 िदनांिकत 26.10.2024 मŐ Ţम 1
पर उİʟİखत आवेदन प


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/612567                                                                           Page 2 of 5
“1. I HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FEW LINES FOR YOUR KIND
CONSIDERATION AND FAVORABLE ACTION PLEASE.
2. PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005.
REGARDING ADMISSIBLE AMOUNT CLAIMABLE UNDER CGHS PACKAGE IN
EMERGENCY CONDITION ADMISSION.
(a) ROOM AND NURSING CHARGES.
(b) PROFESSIONAL FEES.
(c) INVESTIGATION CHARGES.
(d) ADMIN CHARGES.
(e) DRUGS.
(f) IP PHARMACY
(g) OT PHARMACY.
(h) NON DPCO/NPPA
(i) SURGICAL IMPLANTS.
(j) FEMORAL NECK SUPPORT (FNS).
(k) 6.5 MM CANNULATED SCREW.
(1) NECK FIX KIT.
(m) LOCKSCR 05 SELF TAP 1

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. S. Murthy, Nodal Officer, RTI CGHS (HQ), attended the hearing in
person.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that their office has neither received the instant
RTI Application nor received the First Appeal at the initial stage on the
online CGHS portal of Delhi. He apprised the Bench of the fact that the
Public Authority i.e., Central Government Health Scheme was inadvertently

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/612567                                                                           Page 3 of 5
opened by the DOPT and their office have sent many requests to the close
the abandoned portal. Upon receipt of the hearing notice from the
Commission, a suitable reply has been given to the Complainant vide letter
dated 06.04.2026, wherein the relevant information has been provided to
the Complainant, stating as under:
“With reference to your RTI application, it is info

Section 18 of the RTI Act
Section 18
Section 19
Section 7
Section 20 of the RTI Act
Section 25
section 25(5) of the RTI Act
section 4 of the RTI Act


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:
“The following information under RTI act was sought against your office letter
dated CGHS Hyd Cards Sec 11 407 409 Dated 19.12.24 addressed to Director
Admin DOT Hyderabad. copy enclosed.
Following information under RTI Act please be provided.
1 Copies of the showcause notice issued to srikara hospital
2 copies of the replies given by srikara hospital.

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/613988                                                                           Page 2 of 5
3 copy of Admission letter dated 28 Aug 24 containing CGHS ID, signature of the
Billing person on duty of Srikara hospital, IP ID allotted was enclosed. As per the
Arogyasree cashless treatment is done and no cas

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Srinivas Murthy, Nodal Officer, attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that their office has neither received the instant
RTI Application nor received the First Appeal at the initial stage on the
online CGHS portal of Delhi. He apprised the Bench of the fact that the
Public Authority i.e., Central Government Health Scheme was inadvertently
opened by the DOPT and their office have sent many requests to the close
the abandoned portal. Upon receipt of the hearing notice from the
Commission, their office has received the RTI Application along with the
hearing notice form the Commission and a suitable reply based on available
records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 17.04.2026.

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/613988                                                                           Page 3 of 5
7.
A written submissi


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following details with respect to the RR Notice issued vide
reference no 2023/11482/11 dated 17/01/2024 as I am not getting any

CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/614141                                                                           Page 2 of 11
proper replies to my email dated 28 Nov 2024, 06 Dec 2024, 15 Dec 2024 to
gmclt@bsnl.co.in & saniya_al@yahoo.com
1.Months for which payments were due & invoices generated
2.Full details of invoices with call history of all payments outstanding
3.Action Taken on my letters dated 13/08/2019 & 28/08/2019 for surrendering
the Telephone number 0495-2391434
4.Whether all complaints of faulty connection attended & rectif

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. Deepa VP, CPIO-cum-DGM, attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that a pointwise reply on the basis of available
information, has been given to the Complainant by the CPIO vide letter
dated 21.01.2025. She further apprised the Bench that as per the prevailing
guidelines, the CDR (Call detail records) are preserved for two years only
and hence the sought information for the period of 2019 to 2021 cannot be
supplied to the Complainant due to its non-availability.
7.
A written submission has been received from the Complainant vide letter
dated 14.04.2026, stating as under:
“With respect to the Central Information Commission Hearing Notice Number
mentioned ibid, I would like to submit the following before the Hon'ble Central
Information Commission for kind consideration and favourable action please.
I had applied for the followi


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2024(online) seeking
the following information:
“Particulars of information required (in brief)- The following information held by
National Medical Commission (NMC), in the form of Certified copies -A. All
Declaration forms (and ALL annexes thereof) of Dr. Hema Bhojani (Assistant
Professor in Medicine), from January 2020 to May 2024, obtained by NMC in the
RTI application filed on
: 28.06.2024
CPIO replied on
: 16.10.2024
First appeal filed on
: 28.08.2024
First Appellate Authority’s order : 24.12.2024
2nd Appeal dated
: 30.03.2025

CIC/NMCOM/A/2025/615131

Page 2 of 7

process of all U.G. and P. G. inspections of that institute-Parul Institute of
Medical Sciences & Research, Parul University, Vadodara-39

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Shri Subodh Kumar, CPIO-cum-Under Secretary, NMC (MARB), Shri
Pankaj, then CPIO-cum-Under Secretary, NMC and Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha,
CPIO (IT), attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant
information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, CPIO (IT), submitted that point No. 4 and 5 of the
RTI Application pertains to their office and upon receipt of the hearing
notice from the Commission, a suitable reply has been given to the
Appellant vide letter dated 30.04.2026 and the same has been placed on
record.
7.
Shri Subodh Kumar, CPIO-cum-Under Secretary, NMC (MARB) and Shri
Pankaj, then CPIO-cum-Under Secretary, NMC, submitted that the
information with respect to point No. 1 to 3 of the RTI Application is not
traceable.
8.
Upon being queried by the Commission to explain the poor management
of the o

11.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that
point No. 4 and 5 of the RTI Application pertains to IT department of NMC

CIC/NMCOM/A/2025/615131

Page 6 of 7

and upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, a suitable
reply based on available records has been given to the Appellant vide
letter dated 30.04.2026. However, before parting with the case, the
Respondent is cautioned to act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act
by observing the timelines scrupulously and punctually, in future.
12.
With respect to point No. 1 to 3 of the RTI Application, Shri Subodh Kumar,
CPIO-cum-Under Secretary, NMC (MARB) and Shri Pankaj, then CPIO-
cum-Under Secretary, NMC, vide letter dated 16.10.2024 has informed
the Appellant that the records are not traceable. Under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, every Public Authority is duty-bound to maintain
records duly

Section 20
Section 8
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024(online) seeking
the following information:
RTI application filed on
: 11.11.2024
CPIO replied on
: 21.11.2024
First appeal filed on
: 13.01.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : 20.01.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 02.04.2025

CIC/MOHFW/A/2025/615404

Page 2 of 8

“I am writing to request detailed information regarding the bond policy
applicable to both teaching and non-teaching employees at all AIIMS,
specifically in relation to the requirement to serve the Institute for a minimum
period or pay the penalty.
Please provide the requested information separately for all AIIMS, specifying the
bond policy for teaching and non-teaching employees, and also indicate the
relevant policies for each employee group

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Bhola, Administrative Officer, AIIMS Delhi, Shri
Ankit Kumar, Administrative Officer, AIIMS Delhi, Shri A.K. Biswas, Under
Secretary (MoHFW), Shri Gyanendra Prasad, CPIO-cum-Administrative Officer,
AIIMS Bhopal, Shri Ravinder Kumar, CAPIO-cum-Assistant Administrative
Officer, AIIMS Delhi, Shri Raj Kumar Bhardwaj, Administrative Officer, AIIMS
Delhi and Dr. Naval, Assistant Dean, attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the replies provided by
the Respondents.
6.
Shri A.K. Biswas, Under Secretary (MoHFW), submitted that the
information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application
pertains to all new AIIMS across India and no information is available in
their office in a compiled form. Therefore, the then CPIO vide letter dated
21.11.2024 has transferred the same to all new AIIMS.
7.
Shri Gyanendra Prasad, CPIO-cum-Administra

11.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that
the Appellant has filed the instant RTI Application before Department of
Health and Family Welfare, seeking scattered information of all the AIIMS
across India which requires collection & collation of the data. Hence,
giving direction to Department of Health and Family Welfare, to provide
the said information would divert the time and resources of the public
authority and thereby attracting the provisions of Section 7 (9) of the RTI
Act.
12.
It is pertinent to mention that in terms of para 3 (iii) of DoP&T OM No.
10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June 2008, the Appellant should file separate RTI
Applications to different offices in order to obtain such scattered
information. However, the concerned CPIO of the MoHFW has ignored
the DoP&T OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12th June 2008 and has
transferred the RTI Application to all AIIMS across

section 6
Section 6(3) of the RTI Act
Section 7
Section 12
Section 5(4) of RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2025 (online) seeking
the following information:
“Reference: Ragging complaint bearing ref. no. UK_0059 reported on the
National Anti-ragging helpline, reported from your institution.
Details of Information Sought:

CIC/AIMRS/C/2025/616633                                                                           Page 2 of 5
1) Provide a copy of anti-ragging committee report created for the complaint
mentioned above.
2) Provide copies of all internal communications in reference to the
abovementioned complaint.
3) Provide information on the date on which this complaint was reported to the
institution.
4) Provide information on if the complaint mentioned above was submitted
anonymously or with the complainant s name.
5

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Pradeep Chandra Pandey, CPIO-cum-Law Officer, attended the
hearing through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant has no locus in the
averred complaint on which he had sought information under the RTI Act.
Further, the information about the averred raging complaint involves the
disclosure of third-party information of confidential nature and disclosure
of same may endanger the life of third party. The Complainant is neither

CIC/AIMRS/C/2025/616633                                                                           Page 3 of 5
the complainant nor a respondent, hence a third party, seeking information
which is barred by Section 8 (1) (e), (g) and (h) of RTI Act, 2005. Upon
receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, an updated reply has
been given vide letter dated 13.05.2026.
7.
A written submission has been receiv

Section 8(1)(e)
Section 8
Section 8(1)(g)
Section 18 of the RTI Act
Section 18
Section 19
Section 7
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2024(online) seeking
the following information:
“ᮧाथᱮ / आवेदक को Mr. Neeraj kumar Shukla, Executive Engineer (E) BSNL
Electrical Division, 1st Floor, Bhopal House, Lalbagh, Lucknow, Mobile
RTI application filed on
: 29.11.2024
CPIO replied on
: 19.12.2024
First appeal filed on
: 26.02.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record
2nd Appeal dated
: 13.04.2025

CIC/BBNWL/A/2025/616997/BSNLD
Page 2 of 3

9450964205 िनवासी 2/137, से᭍टर-2, जानकᳱपुरम िव᭭तार, लखनऊ से स᭥बि᭠धत
िन᭥वत् जानकाᳯरयᲂ कᳱ आव᭫यकता है:-
1- इनका गृह जनपद ᭍या है और गृह जनपद के िनवास का ᭍या पता है ?
2- ᮰ी नीरज शु᭍ला व उनके पᳯरवार के नाम ᳰकतनी चल व अचल स᭥पिᱫयाँ हᱹ ?”

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Sunil Srivastav, CPIO-cum-Superintendent Engineer, attended
the hearing through VC.
5.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI
Application had sought personal information of third party which is
exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

7.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case
and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in the instant RTI
Application had sought information which is third party’s personal
information and the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1)
(j) of the Act. In this regard, the Commission notes that Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash

CIC/BBNWL/A/2025/616997/BSNLD
Page 3 of 3

Chandra Agrawal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, vide order dated
13.11.2019, has held as under:
“59…in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including
name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks
obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal
information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification,
performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are
all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.01.2025(online) seeking
the following information:
“1.List of registered Retirees/pensioners availing BSNL MRS facility in Aligarh OA
in the order of their HR number and Medical card number
RTI application filed on
: 21.01.2025
CPIO replied on
: 21.02.2025
First appeal filed on
: 02.03.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : 28.03.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 15.04.2025

CIC/BSNLD/A/2025/617207

Page 2 of 3

2.List of retirees/pensioners under Aligarh OA whose vendor codes are created
in SAP/ERP in the order of their vendor codes.
3.List of FMA beneficiaries among Retirees/pensioners in Aligarh OA whose
claims are uploaded in SAP for FY 2023-24,2024-25 quarterly in the order of their
vendor codes
4.List of ret

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Sh. Satya Dev, APIO-cum-AGM (Operations) attended the hearing
through VC.
5.
The Appellant stated that the information sought vide RTI application
dated 21.01.2025 was not provided by the CPIO.
6.
The Respondent submitted that information was denied under section 8
(1) (j) of the RTI Act as it pertains to personal information of retirees and
pensioners.

CIC/BSNLD/A/2025/617207

Page 3 of 3

7.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that
information sought by the appellant in the RTI application pertains to
personal information of a third party, which is exempt from disclosure
under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
8.
In view of above observation, the Commission accepts the reply furnished
by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated NIL (offline) seeking the
following information:
“1. What is the total number of non-faculty employees (Administrative Staff)
currently working at AIIMS Mangalagiri?
RTI application filed on
: NIL
CPIO replied on
: 15.03.2025
First appeal filed on
: NIL
First Appellate Authority’s order : 09.04.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 15.04.2025

CIC/AIIMS/A/2025/617211

Page 2 of 5

2. How many non-faculty employees (Administrative Staff) at AIIMS
Mangalagiri are currently receiving the HPCA?
3. How many non-faculty employees (Administrative Staff) at AIIMS
Mangalagiri are not receiving the HPCA?
4. Since January 2024, has any newly joined non-faculty employee
(Administrative Staff) at AIIMS Mangalagiri been granted the HPCA?

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Col. Shashikant Thumma, CPIO-cum-Deputy Director attended the
hearing in person.
5.
The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that an appropriate reply vide letter dated
15.03.2025 was given to the appellant.
7.
A written submission along with enclosure has been received from Dr. P.K.
Sankaran, CPIO, AIIMS vide letter dated 09.05.2026 and the same has
been taken on record.

8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing respondent and perusal of the records, observes that a
suitable reply based on available records and in accordance with the RTI
Act has been given to the appellant vide letter dated 15.03.2025. Further,
the appellant did not participate in the hearing to defend his appeal.
Hence, no further action lies in the instant case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)

Section 8(e)
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.03.2025 (online) seeking
the following information:

CIC/BOEEY/C/2025/617584                                                                           Page 2 of 4
“Till now e-final certificate is being issued as Certified Energy Manager even
though candidates are qualified as Certified Energy Auditor who have written
National certification examination for Energy auditor/Manager.When will E-final
certificate will be issued with Energy Auditor. When will BEE starts issuing this
certificate? Why till now it is not being issued since 2004?It looks candidates who
are qualified as Energy auditor are not getting full benefits”

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Sh. Vivek Negi, APIO-cum-Joint Director, BEE, New Delhi attended
the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant did not attend the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the appellant had sought final certificate
after he had cleared the national certificate 2024 examination, the result of
which came in January, 2025. The respondent further submitted that

CIC/BOEEY/C/2025/617584                                                                           Page 3 of 4
Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BBE) provided him provisional certificate with
respect to that examination. The respondent also submitted that e-
certificate will be issued to the appellant within one month.
7.
When Commission intervened and asked about the delay in issuing of e-
certificate, the respondent submitted that portal for issuing final e-
certificates was designed recently and certificates were uploaded for the
candidates who had cleared

The original application RTI Registration No. BOEEY/R/E/25/00015 dated
03.03.2025 of the applicant and reply from CPIO has been carefully examined and
the reply has been found in order.”
4.
Feeling
aggrieved
and
dissatisfied,
Complainant approached
the
Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Sh. Vivek Negi, APIO-cum-Joint Director, BEE, New Delhi attended
the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant did not attend the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the appellant had sought final certificate
after he had cleared the national certificate 2024 examination, the result of
which came in January, 2025. The respondent further submitted that

CIC/BOEEY/C/2025/617584                                                                           Page 3 of 4
Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BBE) provided him provisional certificate with
respect to that examination. Th


The Complainant has sought the following information:

The complainant submitted that he had requested the CPIO, PDDE, Western
Command, Chandigarh to provide a copy of the sanction issued by PDDEWC,
regarding grant of new ACPS to Cantt Board employees who come under his
jurisdiction. The RTI application was transferred to CPIOs of different
Cantonment Boards under their jurisdiction on 22.05.2022. One of the Boards
namely “BAKLOH CANTT” was also mentioned in his letter Vide No.
CBBKL/R/T/22/00051 dt 20.05.22. Now, more than two and half months has
passed  but, CPIO Bakloh had not responded in the matter. He therefore,
requested to start the proceedings under section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The CPIO was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on
28.04.2023 vide speed post acknowledgment no.  ED364904673IN.

The Commission observed that there is no reply available on record, moreover,
the CPIO chose to remain absent despite notice.
The CPIO is directed to explain why no reply was given as well as why he failed
to attend the CIC hearing.
The CPIO shall remain present on the next date i.e 30.05.2023 at 2.10 pm at
the VC venue before CIC to showcause why penalty u/s 20 should not be
imposed on them for not providing any reply within the timeline as well as for
not attending the CIC hearing.
The CPIO is also directed to send a point-wise reply to the appellant as per the
availability of records and provisions of the RTI Act, wi


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 02/04/2025 seeking the following
information:
“I Am Joseph Victor A G, a retired employee Of Madras Fertilizers Limited
Chennai. My UAN No. ********1457 Demand Notice from EPFO Chennai:
TN/CHN/Ro CHN (N) /Nmas00079290000002007/2025 Dated 14.03.2025.
Request for Information as Per Attachment.
1. A Retired Employee has no Connection with the Company after Retirement.
The Relevant Salary Information were furnished and authenticated by the

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC
Respondent: Govind Rajan APFC/CAPIO participated in the hearing on VC
The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that appropriate
reply has not been provided by the Respondent. The Respondent submits that the
present Second Appeal arises out of the RTI application dated 02.04.2025 filed
by Shri Joseph Victor A G seeking details of Revised Higher Pension in respect
of a retired employee of Madras Fertilizers Limited (Member ID 100178221457,
UAN TNMAS0007929000002007), including reason for routing differential
contribution through employer, adjustment of pension arrears, interest
calculation, timeline, and exact revised pension amount. After collecting and
verifying the requisite information from the Pension on Higher Wages section of
the exempted establishment, a point-wise reply was furnished to the Appellant
vide letter dated 23.10.2025. The First Appeal was disposed of by the First
Appellate A

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.

The Commission takes note of the late response filed by the CPIO and issues a
strict warning that such delay should not be repeated in future, failing which
appropriate action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 may be initiated.

In view of the fact that the appellant in the present matter is a senior citizen, the
Commission advises the Respondent to extend all possible assistance and
guidance to him and make sincere efforts to resolve his issues expeditiously in
the spirit of the RTI Act.

No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case. The Appeal
stands disposed of.

Section 20 of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Chennai


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 04/01/2025 seeking the
following information:
“1. Certified copy of the month wise details of deposits of Provident fund for the
following account:
a) In Provident fund Account No. HR/GGN/10534/33 of the applicant.

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Poonam Chawla RFFC-II participated in hearing in person
The Complainant 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 no such RTI application has been received in the office. She
further apprises the bench that the subject matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the
CPIO,
Regional Office, Gurugram
(West),
as per reference MID
HR/GGN/10534/33

In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission
made by the parties, the commission reply has not been provided by the CPIO
within the stipulated time specified under the RTI Act.

Further the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of
Respondent for the gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act. It is noted that
the statutory duty to reply to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit
has not been discharged. The delay in resolution of the matter has now extended
beyond one year, which is inconsistent with the object of the Right to Information
Act to promote transparency and accountability.

It is hereby directed to the Respondent to show cause as to why a maximum
penalty of Rs. 25000 should not be imposed on him for failing to comply with the
provisions of RTI Act. A written submission in this regard should reach the
Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which
ex- parte ac

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Gurugram


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 15/04/2025 seeking the following
information:
“Kindly provide below information of Pension on Higher Wages as per Hon’ble
Supreme Court Judgement dated 04.11.2022 in SLP c No. 8658-8659 of 2019
data of Ahmedabad PF Regional office data as on 15-04-2025 or latest available
for Employees who were in service prior to 01.09.2014 in attached PDF format
An Active Registered and not Pensioners Active Pensioners Total
1. How many total registered members?

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC
Respondent: Dinesh Viyyath, RPFC-II/CPIO participated in the hearing on VC
The Appellant submits that the CPIO has failed to provide legible and complete
information, as the PDF supplied in the reply is unreadable with the left
description column partially hidden. The response does not adhere to the
prescribed table format and omits critical figures for 'Active Pensioners' and
'Total' columns, while also failing to provide the total registered members for the
EPFO regional office in Ahmedabad without stating that such records are
unavailable. Furthermore, regarding the information for Gujarat State PSUs at
serial numbers 3, 5, and 7, the CPIO’s claim that no separate data is mentioned is
evasive and fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act.
The Respondent submits that all information available on record and maintained
by this office was duly furnished to the appellant. The CPIO is obligated to
provide only such in

Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of
case records, observes that Appellant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by
the CPIO. Therefore, Commission directs the Respondent to revisit the instant
RTI Application and provide a revised reply, with regards to the instant RTI
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.

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ahmedabad


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 23/03/2025 seeking the following
information:
“Please provide the last/current PF credit status of the below UAN number,
Provide the employment service history details for the below candidate (company
names where she served/serving currently) and also PF withdraw/transfer
request details if any. UAN Number: *********9892 Name: S MADHUVANTHI
DOB: **/**/1996...”
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant on 01/05/2025 stated as:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Ahmad Sahad APFC/CPIO 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 reiterates the facts of the case and further
submits that the appellant has withdrawn his case.

Commission notes that the appellant vide letter dated 27.04.2026 has withdrawn
his case. Hence the case stands closed as withdrawn. The Appeal stands
disposed of accordingly.

Section 8(1)
Section 2(n) of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 11/03/2025 seeking the
following information:
“RO South Chennai of EPFO has rejected the joint Option for Higher Pension
ack No ****************0061. Could you provide the following information?
1. Reason for Rejection
2. Copy of all Communications sent to the Employers

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Keerthi Vyasakumar Enforcement Officer participated in the
hearing on VC
The Complainant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing
despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent submits that the information
sought by the Appellant in the RTI application had already been furnished by the
CPIO based on the records available and held by the office. Further, the First
Appeal preferred by the Appellant was also duly examined and disposed of by
the First Appellate Authority.

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2025/629294                            Page 3 of 4

The Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of
proceedings during hearing observes 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:

"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any,
of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of
information. In the im

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


The Complainant has sought the following information with reference to his
Complaint letter dated 24/08/2021 in respect of dereliction of duties by Flight
Operations Inspector (FOI) Captain Kiran Gode of Western Region:
-
Provide copies of the file notings with regard to the action taken on his
said letter.  Also provide details of action taken against the said delinquent FOI.

The complainant was aggrieved on account of non-receipt of information by
the CPIO. By way of instant complaint, he requested the Commission to take
necessary action against the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise response along with supporting
documents was provided to the complainant vide letter dated 15.02.2022 and
adduced a copy of the same for the perusal of the Commission. He also
volunteered to provide a revised reply to the complainant with the specific
details of the action taken on the complaint in question. The undated and
unsigned written submissions of the CPIO were received and taken on the
record of the Commission.

On a perusal of the case records, the Commission noted that the CPIO vide
letter dated 15.02.2022 furnished a response to the complainant. The
Commission pointed out during the hearing that the reply of the CPIO was not
categorical and appropriate. The CPIO failed to provide the details of the action
taken on the complaint of the complainant. The denial of information under
Section-8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 was also not proper as the CPIO did not
properly mention the reasons for the denial of information.  It is a settled law
that the CPIO should explain to the RTI applicant how a pa
For the reasons recorded above, the Commission noted that the CPIO
volunteered during the hearing to provide a revised reply to the specific points
raised by the complainant. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to send
a copy of the written submissions and the revised reply, within 07 days from
the date of receipt of this order. The instant complaint is disposed of
accordingly.

Va

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

O/o The Director General of Civil Aviation, Opp. Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi - 110003


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 07/01/2025 seeking the
following information:
“1. Form 10C submitted by me on 21 August 2023, with tracking id
10157984815504002 was rejected on 22 August 2023 with the reason "SUBMIT
AFTER SETTLEMENT OF EPF". Form 19 submitted on same date, with tracking

The following were present:-
Complainant: Present on VC
Respondent: Reena Menon RPFC-II/CPIO participated in the hearing on VC
The Complainant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the CPIO
has not replied to his RTI request. He further submits that the CPIO is demanding
fees via a different mode of payment even though he have already paid the fees
by means of Court Fee Stamp. The Respondent submits that they had already
given a reply on 18.02.2025 to the RTI application re submitted on 06.02.2025 to
the complainant and the pension fund account in respect of the complainant had

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2025/604426                              Page 4 of 6

also been settled on 14.02.2025. Taking into account all the facts in this case, vide
order dated 02.05.2025, the First Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal
dated 21.02.2025 by requesting the complainant to register as grievance in the
Online Portal, if required.

The Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of
proceedings during hearing observes that CPIO intimated the complainant to pay
the fee in the prescribed manner as specified in the provisions of the Right to
Information Rules, 2012. 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:

"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any,
of the Inform

section 6(1)
Section 18 of the RTI Act
Section 18
Section 20
section 18
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ernakulam


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 05/05/2025 seeking the following
information:
“1. Please provide the certified copies of all action taken reports (ATRs), noting
sheets, and file movement details pertaining to my grievance representation
submitted to the NCST against the authorities of MNNIT Allahabad regarding
caste-based harassment, denial of PhD candidates, and delay in career
promotion.

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mukesh Kumar Investigator participated in the hearing in Person.
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 appellant has withdrawn his case.

Commission notes that the appellant vide email dated 16.04.2026 has withdrawn
his case. Hence the case stands closed as withdrawn. The Appeal stands
disposed of accordingly.

National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi


The Division Bench heard submissions made by the Respondents which
remained part heard and considering the facts of the case as well as the
submissions made by the Respondent and to provide a fair and reasonable
opportunity of hearing, the Commission adjourned the instant matter to
o2.o9.2019.
ln view of the foregoing, the Division Bench of the Commission directs the
Registrar, CIC to issue notice of hearing to the Third Party i.e., Airports
Authority of lndia, New Delhi under Section 19( ) of the RTI Act, 2005 in
addition to the Appellant and the Respondent for hearing on 02.09.2019 at
11:00 AM.


8. The Commission finds the present appeal in larger public interest. Non
cooperation of software as well as executing agencies cannot be allowed
to defeat the larger goal of a welfare state. Software are developed for
enhancing work efficiency and not to disintegrate the synergy between
various public authorities.

9. It is worthwhile to refer to some of the provisions of the RBD Act, 1969.

Section
3.
Registrar-General,
India.—(1)
The
Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a
person to be known as the Registrar-General, India.

(2) The Central Government may also appoint such other officers
with such designations as it thinks fit for the purpose of
discharging under the superintendence and direction of the
Registrar-General, such fun


After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds the
submissions of the Respondent a welcome and positive response. It is directed
that the Respondent shall furnish Revised Reply to the appellant about the
progress made in the direction of conversion of the crematorium into
environment friendly CNG model, detailing the exact position and current status
with respect to the same, as submitted during the hearing. This Revised Reply
should be furnished within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation
to the Commission.

CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/110282
Vide RTI application dated 06.04.2015, the appellant sought the following
information:-
a) Number of employees (Medical Officers) submitted their LTC claims for
settlement/reimbursement /payment during the period from 01.01.2014 to
31.01.2015 with complete details.
b) No. of LTC claims settled /reimbursed out of above with complete details.
c) No. of LTC claims remain unsettled/pending with complete deta

Section 19 of the RTI Act
section 5(4) of the RTI Act
Section 6(3) of the RTI Act
Section 20 of the RTI Act
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act


13.
In the course of hearing, no plausible reply on point no. 1, that is, on
existence or non existence of any valid transfer of rights by MoUD to

Page 7 of 10

SDMC with respect to the land in question is submitted by the
Respondent SDMC. The two aforesaid communiqués issued by MoUD
and CPWD respectively leave little room for any further deliberation in
this regard. The denial to furnish unambiguous information on query
no. 1 cannot be seen in isolation. While it has been brought on record
that the Commissioner, SDMC was already made aware of the
instance of unauthorised levy of parking charges way back in 2013,
the SDMC seemingly did not take remedial steps. It is therefore
apparent that SDMC made financial gains by taxing the public
unauthorizedly.

14.
What emerges f


The Commission in absence of any reply from the respondent is constrained to
take an adverse view. The registry is directed to issue show cause notice to the
Page 2 of 2

(i) the then PIO – for not replying to the RTI application; and (ii) the present PIO
– for not attending the present hearing either in person or through any other
officer and wasting the time of appellant & this Commission.

Reply, if any be received within 10 days of receipt. Notices be also served
through the FAA. List for hearing on penalty proceedings on 18.10.2018 and
filing of status report on the grievance of complainant.

****************************************************************************************
PENALTY PROCEEDIGS UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE RTI ACT 2005
In terms of the decision dated 28.09.2018, a show cause notice under Section
20 of the RTI was issued to the then PIO as well as the present PIO. An
explanation is brought on record. The noticee, Shri Lalit Gupta, the PIO is
presen

the complainant approached the Commission.


The Commission notes that the appellant is an employee of SDMC aggrieved
with opacity of system of allotment of official residences by L&E Dept. Of
SDMC. Basic information like location wise no. of units available for
allotment, allotment seniority list since year 1995to year 2006 etc were not
furnished to the appellant. The RTI application remained unreplied. The
explanation of PIO is nothing more than a belated excuse. The PIO ought to
have replied to the RTI application and intimated his decision to the
appellant. Similar is the fate of the first appeal. The FAA did not adjudicate
the first appeal. The Commission wonders as to why incompetence is
flourishing in SDMC! If every RTI application seeking such simple information
comes knocking to the Commission due to inaction of PIO & FAA, the RTI
regime will collapse. Lack of effective monitoring & proper training and the
‘pass the buck’ attitude prevalent in Govt. offices is blameworthy.

The present PIO, L&E Dept, SDMC


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05-11-2024 seeking the
following information:

“उपरोÈत ͪवषय मɅ Ǔनवेदन है ͩक, भारत एãयुͧमǓनयम कंपनी ͧलͧमटेड कोरबा
छƣीसगढ़ के Ǒहèसेदार वेदांत कंपनी के ɮवारा पुराने Üलांट को तोड़ने के ͧलए ͧलए गए
अनुमǓत संबंधी NOC/ͪववरण कȧ स×याͪपत ĤǓतͧलͪप पृçठ अंͩकत कर Ĥदान करɅ ।

Page 2 of 5

लोकǑहत, जनǑहत, शासन Ǒहत व भͪवçय मɅ Ûयायालय के सम¢ Ĥèतुत करने हेतु
अ×यंत आवæयक कृपया काय[वाहȣ करɅ।
आवेदन अèवीकृǓत या जानकारȣ कȧ उपलÞधता नहȣं होने पर सूचना के अͬधकार
अͬधǓनयम 2005 कȧ धारा 07 कȧ उपधारा 08 के अनुसारः-
1. ऐसी èवीकृǓत के कारण,
2. अपीलȣय अͬधकारȣ के नाम, पदनाम व पता कȧ जानकारȣ दɅ।
3. जानकारȣ ͩकसी अÛय काया[लय से संबंͬधत हो तो अͬधǓनयम के अनुसार आवेदन
पğ संबंͬधत काया[लय को èथानांतǐरत कर इसकȧ सूचना मुझे भी दȣ जाए।“

The following were present: -
Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Sahoo present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar, US/CPIO along with Shri Nitin Bharti, SO
present in person.
5.
Written statement dated 04.05.2026 filed by the CPIO is taken on
record.
6.
Appellant stated that satisfactory reply has not been provided by the
CPIO and FAA so far. Appellant further contended that even after
disinvestment of shares, 49% shares are held with the Government of India
authorities, therefore, the claim of CPIO that information being not under his
control may be not tenable. It was the plea of the Appellant that due to
omission of Respondent Public Authority accident happened on the subject
plant of BALCO which needs consideration.
7.
CPIO by placing reliance on his written statement stated that upon
receipt of RTI application in question from the Appellant, it has been informed
to the Appellant vide letter dated 10.12.2024 that that as a result of the
disinves

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
The Commission on a perusal of facts of this Appeal and after hearing
submission of both the parties’ notes that the main premise of instant Appeal
was non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO. Per contra, it was
submitted by the CPIO that a timely response intimating factual position about
the fact that owing to disinvestment of BALCO with the transfer of 51% shares
held by the Government of India in favor of the Strategic Partner (SP), namely


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2024 seeking the
following information:

“Kindly provide the certified copies of all (Paper I Paper II Paper III)
question papers of the exam held in NCERT under Limited Departmental

Page 2 of 5

Exam (LDE) to the post of Section Officer (SO) on 26_27th March, 2022.
Kindly provide the above information/ items on priority basis. In case of
any charges (if any), on account of photocopies are to be deposited on
the part of me, may please be informed accordingly.”

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar present in person.
Respondent: Smt. Kiran Juneja, DS/PIO along with Shri Gautam Kumar,
Assistant present in person.

5.
Written statement of both the parties is taken on record.
6.
CPIO stated the genesis of the instant matter that Appellant being
working employee of NCERT appeared in Limited Departmental Exams for the
post of SO in 2024. For his exam preparations, the Appellant through instant
RTI application sought copies of previous exams on the subject. CPIO stated
that as the records of question papers of previous LDE was not available with
her, therefore, this factual position has been informed to the Appellant and
also the RTI application in question was forwarded to the controller of
examination who is the concerned record holder vide letter dated 08.11.2024
for providing the information directly to the Appellant. Upon receipt of hearing
notice from the Commission, the CPIO liaison the matter with the c

8.
Heard the parties at length.
9.
The Commission, ongoing through the facts of this Appeal and hearing
the parties observes that the Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that CPIO has
not provided the desired information with their response. Per contra, it was
the submissions of the CPIO that the records of question papers of previous
Limited Departmental Exams (LDE) was not available with her and the factual
position has been informed to the Appellant, further, the RTI application in
question was forwarded to the controller of examination who is the concerned
record holder vide letter dated 08.11.2024 for providing the information
directly to the Appellant. Upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission,
the CPIO discussed the matter with the controller of examination who
intimated the fact that as on date the previous question papers of LDE for the
post of SO has been weeded out after declaration of results. Hence, the
information sought is not available on record.

Section 25
section 25(5) of the RTI Act
section 4 of the RTI Act


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2024 seeking the
following information:

“आदरणीय सूचना अͬधकारȣ जी hssc/ nta Ēुप d परȣ¢ा adv 1/2023 कȧ 22 अÈटूबर
2023 कȧ शाम कȧ पालȣ के पेपर कोड H 4 के 2 Èवेæचन के ͪवषय मɅ सूचनाएं Ĥदान करे

Page 2 of 7

1. पेपर सेटर या अÛय ɮवारा orignal आंसर key मɅ Ĥæन संÉया 26 मɅ Èया उƣर Ǒदया
गया था
2. Èवेæचन पर ऑÞजेÈशन लगने के बाद ऑÞजेÈशन के मामले पर फैसला लेने के ͧलए
जो सͧमǓत बनाई गई उसमे कुल ͩकतने एÊजाͧमनर शाͧमल थे
(क) इस सͧमǓत मɅ परæन संÉया 26 का ओǐरजनल आंसर देने वाले सदèय को शाͧमल
ͩकया गया या नहȣ
3. पेपर सेटर या अÛय ɮवारा orignel आंसर कȧ मɅ Ĥæन संÉया 61 मɅ Èया उƣर Ǒदया
गया था
4. Èवेæचन पर ऑÞजेÈशन लगने के बाद ऑÞजेÈशन के मामले पर फैसला लेने के ͧलए
जो सͧमǓत बनाई गई उसमे कुल ͩकतने एÊजाͧमनर शाͧमल थे
(क) इस सͧमǓत मɅ परæन संÉया 61 का

The following were present: -
Appellant: Shri Varun Bhardwaj present in person.
Respondent: Shri Manish Srivastava, Asst. Director (Exam IV)-cum-CPIO
present in person.
5.
Written statement dated 12.05.2026 filed by the CPIO is taken on
record.
6.
Appellant contended that information sought regarding empanelment of
original question paper setter to the empanelled experts who has reviewed the
answer key has not been informed by the CPIO so far. The Appellant
contended that the CPIO had intentionally suppressed this information for the
reasons best known to him. Appellant further contested that he has already
challenged the answers to Q. No. 26 and 61 of the subject question paper
before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide CWP No. 20897/2024
which is sub-judice as on date. The Appellant contended that if the records of
the information sought were handed over to the HSSC, then the CPIO should
have transferred the RTI application in question under Section 6 (3)

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
Having considered the submissions of both the parties and after
perusing the materials facts of the instant Appeal, the Commission observes at
the outset that queries raised by the Appellant in the instant RTI application
are more in the nature of seeking clarifications/explanations which do not
conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. For that purpose, the Commission
relies on a judgement Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided on the scope and
ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
& Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

Page 5 of 7

“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about
the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is
available and existing………A public authority is also not required to
furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making
of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `op


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2025 seeking the
following information:

“…Kindly confirm whether the educational certificates submitted by Mr.
Anil Kumar copies enclosed herewith namely the Marksheet and
Certificate of the Higher Secondary Examination 2010 and Secondary
School Examination Class 10 2008 have indeed been issued by your
esteemed institution.
If the aforementioned certificates have been issued by your institution
please provide a certified copy of the examination results of Mr. Anil
Kumar for the above mentioned examinations.

Kindly provide certified copies of the examination application forms and
other related documents submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar, which can
confirm that the application and examination process was indeed
undertaken by M

The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Shri Jitendra Kumar Dwevedi, Advocate present
through video conference.
Respondent: Shri L N Rastogi, Section Officer present in person.
5.
Written statement of the parties is taken on record.
6.
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that information sought regarding
verification of educational certificates and its related results/documents of Shri
Anil Kumar has been denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)(j) and Section 8
(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that Shri
Anil
Kumar
got employment
in Government office
by producing
forged/fabricated documents, in order to expose this fraud in public interest,
the requisite information has been sought which should be disclosed by the
CPIO. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied on a judgment of Hon’ble High Court
of M.P. in the case titled Dr. Jayashree Dubey v. CIC & Ors. W.P. 39771 of 2024
where the Hon’ble High Court set aside the orde

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
Upon perusal of the facts of this Appeal and hearing the submissions of
the parties, the Commission observes that the main premise of instant Appeal
was denial of examination application form and other related documents
submitted by Shri Anil Kumar and verification of his marksheet, etc. under
Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, it is noted that educational
and other related information as sought by the Appellant of Shri Anil Kumar
pertains to personal information of third-party, disclosure of which is
exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission is
of the firm opinion that denial of request of such information by the CPIO in
accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
10.
The Commission placed reliance on a judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case titled Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information
Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012
wher


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2024 seeking the
following information:

 “1.Dated 21 July 2024, I sent an application to you, Honble Shri
Hardeep Singh Puri Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas A Wing,
Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001, to get

Page 2 of 6

my son Abhishek Kumar employed in the Delhi Transco Limited, an
undertaking of the Government of Delhi, under the deceased
dependent quota. Please inform me what action you have taken to
get my son employed on that application and also give a certified
copy of it. Registered Post Number RU132165105IN.

2.   Dated 21 July 2024, I sent an application to you, Honble Shri G.
Kishan Reddy Minister of Mines, Coal A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Road,, New Delhi-110

The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar Upadhyaya, US/CPIO present in person.
4.
Appellant remained absent in the hearing despite service.

Page 4 of 6

5.
A written statement dated 10.02.2026 with a copy marked to the
Appellant has been filed by the CPIO, which is taken on record.
6.
CPIO relying on his written statement submitted that RTI application in
question filed by the Appellant has been received in their office on transfer
basis from the CPIO, M/o Home Affairs and in the said application that
Appellant has sought action taken report on her complaint. CPIO apprised the
Commission that the original referred letter dated 21.07.2024 was not found
available in their office, however, upon receiving a copy of the same with the
RTI application, the CPIO submitted that it came to their notice that core issue
raised by the Appellant pertains to appointment of her son, Mr. Abhishek in
the Delhi Transco Limited on compassi

7.
Heard the parties.
8.
On going through the submissions of the parties and perusal of records,
the Commission observed, at the outset that the core issue raised in the
instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se
rather it is about redressal of Appellant’s grievance regarding non-receipt of
compassionate employment by her son, Mr. Abhishek in lieu of his father’s
death during the course of employment in Delhi Transco Limited (DTL).
9.
From the standpoint of RTI Act, 2005 the CPIO’s reply intimating the
factual clarity in the matter that the whole matter regarding grant of
employment in DTL on compassionate grounds for Appellant’s son relates to
the Government of NCT of Delhi and is not in the purview of the Ministry of
Mines and whereas the information and relief sought in Appellant’s letter

Page 5 of 6

dated 21.07.2024 and RTI application dated 11.10.2024 comes under the
administrative domain of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
10.
I


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2024 seeking the
following information:

“1. 6 ͧसतंबर 2017 से लेकर 16 अÈटूबर 2024 तक ͩकतनी अनुदाǓनत ͪवƣपोͪषत गुǽ
ͧशçय इकाई तथा वेद पाठशालाओं का ĤǓतçठान ĤǓतǓनͬध अथवा ĤǓतçठान सͬचव

Page 2 of 7

ɮवारा औचक Ǔनरȣ¢ण ऑͫडयो वीͫडयो कॉल के माÚयम से अथवा Ĥ×य¢ èथान पर
जाकर ͩकया गया उनकȧ राÏयानुसार तथा जनपदानुसार संÉया बताई जाएं
2. उपरोÈत कालवधीमɅ औचक Ǔनरȣ¢णमɅ अनुपिèथत गुǽ-ͧशçय इकाई संचालकɉ तथा
वेद पाठशाला अÚयापकɉ के नामɉ कȧ सूची तथा औचक Ǔनरȣ¢ण करनेका Ǒदनांक कȧ
जानकारȣ Ĥदान कȧ जाए
3. उपरोÈत कालावधीमɅ औचक Ǔनरȣ¢णमɅ अनुपिèथत पाएं जाने कȧ िèथती मɅ
ĤǓतçठान ɮवारा संबंͬधत गुǽ-ͧशçय इकाईयɉ तथा पाठशालाओं पर कȧ गयी कारवाई का
ͪववरण Ĥदान करे
4. उपरोÈत कालावधीमɅ राÏयानुसार औचक Ǔनरȣ¢ण करने वाले ĤǓतçठान
ĤǓतǓनͬधयɉ के नामɉ कȧ सूची Ĥदान कȧ जाएं
5.

The following were present:-
Complainant: Ms. Gargee Pathak present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Asst. Director-cum-the then CPIO along
with Shri Ravi Tyagi, Asst. Director present through video conference.
5.
Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6.
Appellant while narrating the factual background of the matter stated
that her husband being one of the traditional vedic scholar is engaged in
imparting education/training to students of vedas on its own level with the
financial grant of the Respondent Public Authority, however, this assistance
was suddenly stopped by the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore,
Appellant being lawyer by profession filed court case before the Hon’ble High
Court of M.P., Indore Bench bearing WP No. 49433/2025 which is sub-judice as
on date. As regards information sought in this case, it was the plea of the
Appellant that CPIO instead of facilitating the information in soft copies asked

Page 6

9.
Heard the parties.
10.
On perusal of the records of this matter, it is apparent beyond
reasonable doubt that the information sought by the Appellant regarding all
financially aided veda pathsala and GSP units coming under the jurisdiction of
Respondent Public Authority, is voluminous in nature, therefore granting
opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant by the CPIO, is in
accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the CPIO at this
stage is ready and willing to reiterate their offer of inspection of relevant
records pertaining to RTI application under reference to the Appellant as the
Appellant resides in the same city.
11.
Accordingly, in the light of discussion held with the parties during the
hearing, the Commission deems it fit to direct the CPIO to facilitate one more
opportunity of inspection of relevant records in response to instant RTI
application to the Appellant, on a mutually convenient date and time, within
four

Section 2(f)
Section 10 of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2025 seeking the
following information:

“Subject: Request for NEET-UG 2020 Scorecard under RTI Act, 2005
To,
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
 National Testing Agency (NTA),

Page 2 of 4

 Ministry of Education, Government of India.

Respected Sir/Madam,

I, SAHIL YADAV, son/daughter of ******, kindly request a copy of my
NEET-UG 2020 Scorecard under the Right to Information Act, 2005. My
details are as follows: Application Number: 2025042811863 Date of
Birth: 19/02/2002 Registered Email/Mobile (during NEET 2020):
********* Reason for Request: Unfortunately, I have lost my original
NEET-UG 2020 scorecard, and I urgently require it for my Foreign
Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) eligibility ve

Page 3 of 4

The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Kumar Niloy, Dy. Director-cum-CPIO present in person.
5.
Written statement dated 12.05.2026 filed by the CPIO is taken on
record.
6.
Appellant did not turn up for hearing despite service of hearing notice.
Therefore, to facilitate due assistance, the Bench tried to contact the Appellant
on phone-call. Upon being contacted through call, the Appellant stated that
after filing the Second Appeal, he got the desired information through
alternative mode and is satisfied with the same. The Appellant further stated
that since he had received the requisite information, this Appeal may be closed
accordingly.
7.
CPIO by placing reliance on his written statement stated that as per
clause 15.6 mentioned in information bulletin of NEET (UG) 2020, the records
of NEET (UG)-2020 are preserved for 90 days from the declaration of results
and as per the norms the records have been weeded out. Therefore,

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
The Commission on a perusal of facts and records placed on file, and
after hearing both the parties considers that the main premise of instant
Appeal was non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO. Per contra, it
was submitted by the CPIO that that as per clause 15.6 mentioned in
information bulletin of NEET (UG) 2020, the records of NEET (UG)-2020 are
preserved for 90 days from the declaration of results and as per the norms the
records have been weeded out prior to receipt of RTI application in question.
Therefore, the score card of NEET (UG) 2020 is not available with the CPIO and
this fact was informed to the Appellant at the initial stage itself.
10.
The Commission notes that the reply provided by the CPIO by clarifying
the factual position as explained in para 9 above is well within the provisions of
the RTI Act, 2005, as the CPIO can only provide such information as is held in
the office record, and as a matter of fact, he is not o


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2024 seeking the
following information:

“1.
Please
refer
to
your
office
memo
number
Academic
Branch/2024/2401/1 dated 01.10.2024.

Page 2 of 4

2. Please forward an attested copy of application form submitted for
admission of Ms Farheen Khan. Sir, as explained earlier, it is clear cut
case of fraudulent admission under fake NCL-OBC certificate. To enable
me to approach the M.P High Court by means of a writ petition to issue
directions/fee filing the F.I.R against the FRAUDSTERS, it is to be
determined whether Mr Feroz Khan or his wife Smt Peetu Khan has
signed on the admission application form. This information is sought
under R.T.I Act 2005.

3. Sir, since the matter is related to FRAUD, this may not be tre

The following were present:-

Appellant: Hon. Subedar Major Ramesh Kumar (Retd.) present through video
conference.
Respondent: Shri Prashant Bhatnagar, AR/CPIO present through video
conference.

5.
Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6.
Appellant stated that information seeking copy of application form
submitted for admission of Ms. Farheen Khan on the basis of alleged forged
NCL- OBC certificate is requested from the CPIO to expose the
fraud/corruption activity carried out by the concerned persons. Appellant
contended that this issue has been taken up by him before the Hon’ble Chief
Minister of the State and Special Task Force by filing a complaint. Appellant

Page 3 of 4

expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that information was denied by the
CPIO claiming it to be personal information of third-party. It was expected
from the CPIO that he should have obtained consent from the third-party
under Section 11 of RTI Act for disclosure of desired

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
Upon perusal of the facts of this Appeal and hearing the submissions of
the parties, the Commission observes that the main premise of instant Appeal
was denial of application form and OBC certificate submitted for admission of
Ms. Farheen Khan as personal information of third-pard. In this regard, it is
noted that educational and other related information as sought by the
Appellant of Ms. Farheen Khan pertains to personal information of third-party,
disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Hence, the Commission is of the firm view that denial of request of such
information by the CPIO vide letter dated 19.11.2024 is in accordance with the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
10.
The Commission also relied on a judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case
titled
Girish
Ramchandra
Deshpande
v.
Central
Information
Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012.
Moreover, Section 44

Section 11 of RTI Act
Section 8
Section 44
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2024 seeking the
following information:

“…1. Please provide the Question Paper with Answer Key of Central
Secretariat Clerical Services (CSCS) Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA)
Grade, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2018 to

Page 2 of 3

2020 and 2021 to 2023 which were held on 11.02.2024 (for 2018 to
2020) and 25.02.2024 (for 2021 to 2023) in two phases respectively.”

The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Sarvesh Yadav present through audio conference.
Respondent: Dr. Sharmila Devi, Jt. Director-cum-CPIO along with Ms. Vishakha,
Jr. Consultant present in person.
5.
Written statement dated 12.05.2026 filed by the CPIO is taken on
record.
6.
CPIO stated that a reply has been provided to the Appellant initially
requesting him to visit the website of NTA for getting the requisite
information. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, the
CPIO revisited that contents of RTI application and provided a revised reply to
the Appellant vide letter dated 12.05.2026 by giving the specific URL path from

Page 3 of 3

where the question papers can be accessed and for answer keys it was
informed to the Appellant that post-examinations these records are held with
the DoPT.
7.
Appellant did not turn up for hearing despite service. Therefore, keeping
in mind the principles of natural justice, the Bench tried to connect

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
Considering the fact that after receiving the information sought from the
CPIO, the purpose of Appellant in filing this RTI application and also the instant
Second Appeal has been served. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope
to intervene in the matter.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.


1.
The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2024
seeking the following information:

“I am filing this application under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 to
seek information regarding the examination conducted for the position
of Superintendent as per Advertisement Number 03/2024. The details of
the examination and my application are as follows:
Advertisement Number: 03/2024
Examination Date: 17 November 2024
Roll Number: 24110082
Application Number: CNDN1067
I kindly request the following information:
1. A copy of my evaluated OMR sheet along with the answer key used for
evaluation.
2. Details of the marks awarded to me in the examination.
3. The cutoff marks for qualification in the said examination.
4. A detailed explanation of the evaluation pro

Page 3 of 5

The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Shri Mahboob Ali present through audio conference.
Respondent: Ms. Manisha Singh, DR-cum-CPIO present in person.

5.
Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6.
CPIO placed reliance on her written statement and submitted that
recruitment process for the subject post was in process at the relevant time
and this fact has been informed to the Appellant/Complainant at the initial
stage. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, the CPIO
revisited the contents of RTI application in question and provided revised
point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information to the
Appellant/Complainant with enclosures. Contents of revised reply are
reproduced below for the ease of reference –

“1. Copy of OMR Sheet as available for Part A and Part B along with the answer
key used for evaluation are annexed as Annexure I.
2. In Part A: For Question Nos. 17, 30, 37, and 50, one mark

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
Considering the fact that the purpose of Appellant/Complainant filing
this RTI application and also the instant Second Appeal and Complaint was
resolved after receiving the information sought, the Commission finds no
scope to intervene in the matters.
The Second Appeal and the Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

 Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रेलंगी)


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2023 seeking the
following information:

Page 2 of 4

“information regarding Advt No AES/MNIT/ESTT//2023/01 Date
22/3/2023. Non teaching Recruitment For Post Assistant Registrar.

1 All provisionally Select candidate NTA Score & Interview Score

The following were present:-

Page 3 of 4

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Surya Prakash, AR/CPIO along with Shri Sudhakar Mal, AR
(Estt.)/PIO and Shri Vikram, Sr. Asst. present through video conference.
5.
The Appellant did not turn up in the NIC studio for hearing. Therefore,
with the due efforts of Registry, the Bench tried to connect the Appellant
through audio conference, however, there is no response. The Commission
instead of prolonging the matter further, deems it fit to decide this Appeal on
merits based on strength of documents placed on record.
6.
CPIO submitted that point-wise reply along with relevant available
information has been provided to the Appellant in the first instance. For point
No. 3 of RTI application in question, CPIO emphasized that in the first reply, it
was informed to the Appellant that recruitment process was ongoing,
therefore information cannot be provided at the relevant time. However, with
the receipt of subsequent RTI applic

8.
Heard the party, appeared.
9.
The Commission after adverting to the facts of this Appeal, and perusal
of the records observes that as far as RTI Application in question is concerned,
it was suitably replied to the Appellant earlier and now vide written statement
of the CPIO covering all the aspect regarding scores of candidates including
that of the Appellant for selection process on subject post and other related
information. Further, the written statement filed by the CPIO is comprehensive
and self-explanatory which adequately addressed the contentions raised by
the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act,
2005.

Page 4 of 4

10.
Moreover, in absence of the Appellant during hearing to plead his case
or to controvert the version of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope to
intervene in the matter, at this juncture.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT),


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.03.2025 seeking the
following information:

“please provide information regarding ugc net December 2024 subject
law(058) examination.
1.Please provide data of Category wise total number of student
appeared in ugc net December 2024 in subject law(058) examination.

Page 2 of 4

2. for Obc(NCL) no of qualified jrf 30.Ews no of qualified 19 same for
assistant professor obc (NCL) no of qualified 340 And for ews 163.
For ews reservation is 10% and for obc reservation is 27%.in simple
mathematical calculation if 10% value is 19 then 27% value is approx 51
but instead of 51 only 30 candidate where qualified .same it is for
assistant professor.
my question is according to ugc net December 2024 law subject. Please
provide catego

The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Dr. Sharmila Devi, Jt. Director-cum-CPIO along with Ms. Vishakha,
Jr. Consultant present in person.
4.
Written statement dated 12.05.2026 filed by the CPIO is taken on
record.
5.
CPIO stated that a reply has been provided to the Appellant initially.
Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, the CPIO
revisited that contents of RTI application and provided a revised reply to the
Appellant vide letter dated 12.05.2026 informing that –
“…Furthermore, the category-wise data for Subject Law (058) appeared in
UGC-NET Dec 2024 are as under:
Gen- 1679, Gen EWS- 751 OBC(NCL)-1329 SC-662 ST-230.
Regarding mathematical data for subject Law result prepared, in this
connection, kindly refer Chapter 6(Key challenges and Result) under clause 6.3
of pages 33 to 35 of Information Bulletin UGC-NET Dec 2024.

Page 3 of 4

Yes, as reservation policy, strictly followed as per the Government of India
p

7.
Heard the Respondent.
8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts of this Appeal, and perusal
of the records observes that as far as RTI Application in question is concerned,
it was suitably replied to the Appellant now vide written statement of the CPIO
covering all the aspect regarding category wise data of the subject law and
other related information. Further, the written statement filed by the CPIO is
comprehensive and self-explanatory which adequately addressed the
contentions raised by the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal as per the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
9.
Moreover, due to the non-appearance of the Appellant during hearing
to plead his case or to controvert the version of the CPIO, the Commission
finds no scope to intervene in the matter, at this juncture.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

section 8(1) of RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.02.2025 seeking the
following information:

“I, Suresh Chand Meena, formally submit this correspondence concerning
the complaint I lodged on 29.11.2024 against Mr. Suraj Bhan Meena,
Senior Assistant in the Academic Department. Despite my prior

Page 2 of 5

submission, I have yet to receive any acknowledgment or update
regarding the matter.
It has come to my attention that Mr. Suraj Bhan Meena, without
obtaining prior leave or necessary authorization from his superior
officers, attended legal proceedings in court during official working hours
in an unauthorised manner. Such an action not only disrupted my
schedule but also resulted in an unnecessary waste of judicial time and
resources, alongside causing inconvenience to

The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Surya Prakash, AR/CPIO along with Shri Sudhakar Mal, AR
(Estt.)/PIO and Shri Vikram, Sr. Asst. present through video conference.

5.
Appellant remained absent in the hearing despite service. Therefore,
with the assistance of the Registry, the Bench tried to connect the Appellant
through audio conference, however, there is no response. The Commission
instead of prolonging the matter further, deems it fit to decide this Appeal on
merits based on relied upon documents filed by the parties.
6.
CPIO reiterated the contents of their initial reply by stating that queries
raised by the Appellant are more in the nature of seeking clarifications which
do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO further apprised the
Bench that Appellant has filed multiple RTI application on various occasions
seeking similar information and in response to which much of the information
sought has been provided to th

7.
Heard the party, appeared.

Page 4 of 5

8.
The Commission, at the outset, pointed out the CPIO during hearing that
complete denial of request of information in one liner that queries do not fall
within Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. It
is expected from the CPIO to address each and every query raised in the RTI
application in a distinguished and categorical manner by facilitating the
relevant permissible information as is available on records. To this end, the
CPIO agreed to file a revised reply before the CIC by giving point-wise
categorical response.
9.
In compliance of the said directions, the CPIO filed a revised point-wise
reply before the CIC, which is taken on record. Relevant contents of which are
reproduced below –
1. “For question no. 1 of his RTI application, the desired information has
already been provided in response to another RTI application (No.
MNITJ/R/E/25/00072 dated 25.07.2025 Annexure-A).
Ann


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2025 seeking the
following information:

“1. Please provide the date of the beginning of the construction on the
second floor of the ARSD College Building.
2. Please provide the date of completion of the construction on the
second floor of the ARSD College Building.
3. Please provide a copy of the building map approved by the MCD for
constructing second floor on ARSD College Building.
4. Please provide a copy of the safety certificate issued by the competent
authority for the use of Second floor of the college after its completion.
5. Please provide copies of the tenders/bids issued for the construction of
Second Floor on ARSD College Building.
6. Please provide total expenditure incurred for constructing second floor
on

33.
Heard the parties.
34.
On perusal of the records of the instant Second Appeals, the
Commission observes, at the outset, that similar nature of Second Appeals of
the Appellant against same Public Authority has already been heard and
decided by this Commission in the past and this repeated nature of RTI
applications seeking similar information goes against the spirit of RTI Act and
consuming the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities in
collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their
regular duties. The Commission places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case titled Central Board of Secondary
Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of
2011) wherein it was held:

“37…. impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all
and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in
the functioning of public authorities and eradicatio

section 11
Section 8
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
Section 10 of the RTI Act
Section 8(1)(j)
Section 12
Section 44
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.01.2025 seeking the
following information:

“I, Gaurav Goel applied for the post of EDP Supervisor in the year 2021
with the following details
Post applied EDP supervisor

Page 2 of 7

Application number 121095900292
Skill test Roll no. 16281800767
The skill test was done on 01 oct 2023.
I, gaurav goel submitted the PGDCA document in November 2023 in nios
head office, post which the file was moved by the Recruitment section
regarding the candidature of gaurav goel (mine).
Following information is required:

1) Pls provide the copy of noting where the CONSIDERATION OF
CANDIDADATURE OF GAURAV GOEL FOR THE POST OF EDP SUPERVISOR
was PUT UP, which includes all the remarks and signature of the officers
involved.

2) Pls

The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Gaurav Goel present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gautam, Dy. Director/ CPIO present in person.
5.
Written statement of both the parties is taken on record.
6.
Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI application expressed
his dissatisfaction to the fact that noting/remarks of the Committee considering
the selection of 16 candidates and not recommending the name of Appellant in
the list of selected candidates for the subject applied post has not been provided
by the CPIO and FAA so far. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission.
The Appellant contended that Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not
applicable in this matter as he has sought information in larger public interest

Page 5 of 7

and in support of his arguments, the Appellant gave reference of one of the
citations i.e. AIR2007KER225, etc.
7.
CPIO stated that Appellant has sought information regarding his non-
selection for the post of

9.
Heard the parties.
10.
The Commission, after going through the materials placed on record and
after hearing submission of both the parties observes that the core contention
of the Appellant in the instant Appeal was non-receipt of noting/remarks given
by the Selection Committee Members regarding non-consideration of
Appellant’s name for the subject post and also the noting along with application
form of selected candidates. To this end, it was submitted by the CPIO that
Appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and representation including the
present ones and in response to his RTI application it was informed to the
Appellant that he did not possess the essential qualification of post graduate
Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) at the time of submission of
application and required experience of 3 years in programming and system
development in a reputed organization. Appellant neither mentioned the said
qualification in his application for nor submitted any s

section 8
Section 8
Section 44
Section 10 of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act