The complainant has filed RTI application dated 22/10/2024 seeking the
following information:
“I request you to kindly provide me with the CCTV footage from the following
areas for the dates from 12 October 2024 to 19 October 2024 during the lunch
hours:

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Sovan Bera (Authorized Representative for the CPIO) participated
in the hearing in person
The complainant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing
despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent submits that the CCTV recording
from 12.10.2024 to 19.10.2024 are not available in NVR.

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/C/2024/657089                            Page 3 of 6

 Further during the hearing, the Commission had explicitly directed the
Authorized Representative of the CPIO to file a detailed affidavit stating the
specific reason as to why the CCTV footage was deleted within a span of one
month by the end of the day

In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission
made by the Authorized Representative of the CPIO, the commission had directed
him during the course of hearing to file a detailed affidavit to the commission
stating the specific reason as to why the CCTV footage was deleted within a span
of one month and it is noted with serious concern that despite the clear direction
of the Commission, the Authorized Representative has failed to file the said
affidavit and has thereby willfully disobeyed and not complied with the lawful
directions of the Commission.

The Commission further observes that the blatant denial of the information sought
by the complainant without furnishing any justification or supporting evidence,
reflects a mala fide intention on the part of the CPIO to withhold the information
in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Commission also takes serious note of the absence of the CPIO during the
hearing, which has

Employees State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2024(offline) seeking
the following information:
RTI application filed on
: 29.11.2024
CPIO replied on
: 18.12.2024
First appeal filed on
: 11.01.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record
2nd Appeal dated
: 08.04.2025

CIC/SECFL/A/2025/112152

Page 2 of 3

“1.वषᭅ 2022-23
-
मᱶ हसदेव ᭃेᮢ मᱶ वाटर कूलर का जो टे᭠डर ᱟआ था उसकᳱ ᮧित

देने कᳱ
कृपा करᱶ।
2.ᮧित एक नग वाटर कूलर का ᳰकराया
 .
ई
 .
सी
 .
एल

 .
हसदेव ᭃेᮢ ᳇ारा भुगतान ᳰकया
गया। भुगतान स᭥ब᭠धी िववरण कᳱ ᮧित देवᱶ।
3.वषᭅ2023-2024
मᱶ हसदेव ᭃेᮢ मᱶ वाटर कूलर

का जो टे᭠डर ᱟआ था उसकᳱ ᮧित देने कᳱ
कृपा करᱶ।
4.ᮧित एक नग वाटर कुकर का ᳰकराया एम.ई.एक हसदेव ᭃेᮢ ᳇ारा भुगतान ᳰकया गया।
भुगतान स᭥ब᭠धी िववाण कᳱ ᮧित देवᱶ।
5.वाटर कूलर का टे᭠डर ᳰकतने माह का हो

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Sh. Ashutosh Pandey, CPIO-cum-Chief Manager (Mining) attended
the hearing through VC.
5.
The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant
pertaining to water coolers could not be furnished as water coolers were
never procured in the office.

CIC/SECFL/A/2025/112152

Page 3 of 3

7.
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
provisions of the RTI Act has been given to the appellant vide letter dated
18.12.2024. Moreover, the appellant has not participated in the hearing
to contest his case. Hence, no further action lies in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2024(offline) seeking
the following information:
“1.Calls details of Mobile No 9528449683 (Jio Company) for the Period w.e.f 1-
1-2021 to 31-12-2021
RTI application filed on
: 22.12.2024
CPIO replied on
: 06.01.2025
First appeal filed on
: 18.02.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record
2nd Appeal dated
: 15.04.2025

CIC/DOTEL/A/2025/112560

Page 2 of 5

2.Copy of Terms & Conditions under which the aforesaid company kept the data
under Preservation.”

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Saurabh Chaturvedi, CPIO-cum-Director, attended the hearing
in person.
5.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that initially the then CPIO vide letter dated
06.01.2025 has informed the Appellant to deposit the requisite fee for the
RTI Application. The Appellant thereafter deposited the requisite fee but
inadvertently no reply was given by the then CPIO with respect to the
instant RTI Application. Upon receipt of the hearing notice from the
Commission, a suitable reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter
dated 29.04.2026, which is as under:

CIC/DOTEL/A/2025/112560

Page 3 of 5

“Point No.1: Call details of mobile number 7248157598 (VI Comp) for the period
w.e.f 1-1-2021 to 31-12-2031.
Reply: The information sought is neither maintained nor available in the records
of this office. Furthermore, Call Detail Records (CDRs), Subscribers Data Reco

8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case
and perusal of the records, observes that no suitable reply qua the instant
RTI Application has been given by the then CPIO at the initial stage. Upon
receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, the present CPIO has
provided a suitable reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.04.2026.
The Commission finds merit in the reply dated 29.04.2026 that Call Detail
Records (CDRs), Subscriber Data Records (SDRs), live locations, etc., can
only be sought from Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) by designated Law


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2025 (offline) seeking
the following information:
You are requested to furnish following information.

CIC/NMCOM/C/2025/112564                                                                           Page 2 of 4
1. That I filed a complaint against Dr. Manas Kumar Panigrahi, Senior consultant-
Neurosurgeon, KIMS Hospital. Minister Road, Secunderabad-500003 on
23.02.2023 under Case No.04/2023 with Telangana Medical Council, Hyderabad-
500095 which is pending before the said council for a over a Period of one year
and six months without passing final order on the complaint despite presentation
of all tangible evidence in support of the said case to the said council, a copy of it
is included here for easy access.
2. Since t

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. Neetu Gahlaut, CPIO-cum-S.O., attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that upon receipt of the hearing notice from
the Commission, an elaborated and updated reply has been given to the
Complainant vide letter dated 29.04.2026.
7.
A written submission has been received from Ms. Neetu Gahlaut, CPIO-
cum-SO, vide letter dated 29.04.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the
Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract
of the same is as under:
“Sir,

CIC/NMCOM/C/2025/112564                                                                           Page 3 of 4
Please refer to the subject and your RTI application dated 06.02.2025. In this
regard, It is to inform that the desired information as follows:
"The information sought in the RTI is in form of question or seeking clarifications,
which do not form

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
Section 8
Section 30(3)
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 Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.02.2025(offline) seeking
the following information:
RTI application filed on
: 10.02.2025
CPIO replied on
: 10.03.2025
First appeal filed on
: 13.03.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : 18.03.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 16.04.2025

CIC/NHAIN/A/2025/112899

Page 2 of 6

“उᲦ कानून के तहत मुझे नविनᳶमᭅत मेरठ पौढी रा᳦ीय राजमागᭅ के िलये बन रहे जलालाबाद
स शुᱨ होकर ᳰकसान सहकारी चीनी िमल तक जाने बाले कोट᳇ार बाईपास फोर लेन के
सबंध मे िन᳜ जानकारी ᳰदलाये जाने कᳱ कृपा करे।
1 मेरठ-पौढी रा᳦ीय राजमागᭅ के िलये जलालाबाद से शुᱨ होकर ᳰकसान सहकारी चीनी
िमल तक जाने बाली कोट᳇ार बाईपास फोर लेन कᳱ कुल लबाई चौडाई तथा लागत ᳰकतनी
है माᮢ लंबाई चौडाई तथा लागत बताये।
2 मेरठ पोढी रा᳦ीय राजमागᭅ के िलये जलालाबाद से शुᱨ होकर ᳰकसान सहकारी चीन

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Absent.
5.
The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
6.
The Respondent did not attend the hearing.
7.
A written submission has been received from Sh. Shankesh Sharma, PIO,
Najibabad vide letter dated 07.05.2026, a copy of which has been sent to
the appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant
extract of the same is as under:
“With reference to above mentioned subject, kindly refer to the notice of
hearing for RTI application having file no. CIC/NHAIN/A/2025/112899
dt.20.04.2026 (received in this office on 29.04.2026) vide which it has been
intimated that an hearing to be held on 14.05.2026 at 11:15 AM before Hon'ble
Chief Information Commissioner Ms. Jaya Verma Sinha wherein it has been
directed to submit written submission, if any, to the commission at least 07
working days before the date of hearing and the same may be sent to the
Commission's link i.e. http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-p

8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case
and perusal of the records placed before it, observes that a suitable and
updated reply dated 07.05.2026, in accordance with provisions of the RTI
Act, has been provided to the appellant. However, the Respondent did
not participate in the hearing despite serving of the hearing notice.
Accordingly, the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct
of the concerned CPIO for not participating in the hearing.
9.
In view of the above observation and the updated reply furnished by the
respondent, the Commission admonish the conduct of CPIO and cautions
him to be careful in future with respect to hearings before Hon’ble CIC.
10.
A copy of this order is marked to the FAA who shall ensure that a copy of
this order is received by the erring CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)


The Complainant in his complaint has sought the following information on
point no. 1, 2 & 4:

The complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply. However, on
a query he could not provide any justified reason for not availing inspection as
proposed by the CPIO.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided vide letter dated
18.08.2022.

The CPIO in his reply on points no. 1-4 had stated that the information sought
is not in compiled form, the complainant may inspect the related bills by giving
7 days prior notice. The FAA also vide order dated 05.09.2022 disposed of the
first appeal and concurred with the CPIO’s reply. The complainant failed to
justify the reason for not availing inspection.
The Commission noted that there was no denial of information and the
complainant failed to avail of the inspection facility offered without any
reasons.
The Commission observed that the CPIO provided a suitable reply. The present
complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the
Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied
with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other

3

clause of Section-18. Since records of the case do not indicate any such
deliberate denial o

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


Please provide the details, what action has been taken on his complaint dated 28/12/2012.


The appellant has sought the information regarding a letter sent to APIO C/o Dist. Inspector of Schools
council, Purba Medinipour Pry. Education PO+Dist – Purba Medinipur, Tamluk with Regd. A/D by post
through Contai Head Office whose RW no – 415869651 dt 06/06/14 and another letter was sent on
27/06/2014 to the District Inspector of Schools, Purba Medinipur Dist Primary School Council. Salgachia
(Stn Road) PO – Tamluk, Dist – Purba Medinipur Pin HO 721636. Provide the cause of damage condition
of the said envelop. If the address was on the envelope yet, why did the post-man not find out the famous
School Board Office at Tamluk town. Provide the names who went to deliver those envelops and who cut
these envelops and joined it by gum and other envelop join with staplers pins and vari


Appellant sought following information:
1. Copy of his TTA Exam. Answer sheet.
2. Copy of Answer Kay
3. Total No. of candidates appeared for the said examination.
4. Total No. of candidates qualified Pt. wise, i.e. Part I,II&III.
5. Marks requires for qualifying each section/part.
6. No. of candidates appeared for PUNE SSA.
7. No. of candidates qualified for PUNE SSA Part wise i.e. Part I,II & III.
8. How many marks obtained by the last OBC candidate in PUNE SSA Part wise?
9. If there is criteria for selection in each Part i.e. Part I/II/III & what it is.
10. Whether the criteria has been Notified in the Said Advertisement.
11. Whether there is Negative Marking System, If so, whether it is mentioned in Advertisement.
12. Whether the candidate not qualify Part I-then Further Par


M/s Computer Galaxy participated in the tender process of the captioned tender but the tender
was rejected in the qualifying round. In respect of the same he has sought the following
information:
1. Reasons of the rejection of tender in the qualifying round.
2. Copy of the correspondence (if any) between BSNL and Central Excise Department
regarding the validity of the service tax registration of M/s Computer Galaxy.


The appellant has sought the following information:
(a) A photocopy of Audit Objection.
(b) Has the ITO, Ward 4, taken permission of a Superior Officer to reopen the returns aleady
settled? There is NO concealment on my part. The refund has been allowed by the
competent ITO. If a permission of the superior officer has been obtained- then- a photocopy
of the orders is required.
(c) A justification, if any, for treating the retiral benefits of HAU, Hisar, in a manner which is
inconsistent with the manner adopted at other universities outside Haryana.
(d) If the IT Dep has made correct observations- then-has the Dep written to the CBDT so that
the interpretation may be discussed & implemented at the national level? It will give huge
income to GOI. If the answer is yes- then- a photo


The appellant has sought the certified copies of complete search folders in respect of CIC order
File no. CIC/DS/A/2012/000186/LS.


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 25/01/2025 seeking the following
information:
“1) Please provide both 1st and 2nd list of appointment with category wise
candidates selection list. Also provide number of selection in each category in
both lists.
2) Since 2nd list of appointment depends on candidates who have not joined from
1st list, please provide list of candidate category wise who have not joined from
1st list of appointment which creates 61 vacancies for 2nd list.

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Shalini Sharma Jr. Manager HR (Authorized Representative) and
Subhash Kumar 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 information sought is exempted from disclosure under section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of
case records, observes that appropriate response has not been furnished by the
concerned 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 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.


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 20/05/2025 seeking the
following information:
“1. Certified copy of the result of the skill test of the applicant.
2. Certified copy of the minutes related to the skill test result.
3. Certified copy of the applicant’s skill test question paper and answer sheet.
2. The CPIO reply dated 01/09/2025 is taken on record

The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Sanskriti Tripathi Assistant Registrar Legal/CPIO 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 reiterates the facts of the case ad
further submits that the CPIO reply was provided to the Complainant.

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 i

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

Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agri. University, Jhansi


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 10/03/2025 seeking the
following information:
“My EPF UAN account number: **********9929

Current Employer: Bharathiyar College of Engineering and Technology,
Karaikal, Ut of Puducherry
EPF office holding new account: EPFO, PUDUCHERRY

The following were present:-
Complainant: Present on VC
Respondent: Atishay Yadav APFC/CPIO participated in the hearing on VC
The Complainant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the
complete information sought has not been provided. The Respondent submits that
information sought has been provided. He further apprises the bench that the
grievance is resolved

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:

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2025/626971                            Page 3 of 4

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

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Puducherry


The Complainant has sought the following information:

The complainant’s representative submitted that information sought in respect
of the relevant period was not provided.
The CPIO reiterated the written submissions dated 12.05.2023. He explained
that the STR for the period from 01.01.2020, had been pending with the
District Collector for approval, due to the corona pandemic and it is clarified
that, till the new STR comes into force, the old STR prevails. The Collector
approved the new STR on 30.08.2022.

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated
24.06.2022 replied to the appellant and stated in respect of point no. (a) the
standard table rent in respect of Wellington Cantonment for the period with
effect from 01.01.2020. In respect of point no. (b) the CPIO replied that the
Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1937 has been superseded by the
Cantonment Land Administration Rules 2021 dated 01.12.2021 and published
in the gazette vide no. 19 dated 02.12.2021. The copy of the same is available
on the website of www.dgde.gov.in.
The Commission observed
As per admission of the CPIO, the new STR came into force on 30.08.2022 and
therefore, he volunteered to provide a revised reply with the copies of the new
STRs on the points related to the 2 STRs asked for within 7 days from the date
of receipt of this order.
The CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future and provide suitable complete
replies on time.

The complaint is disposed of accord


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 vide written submissions dated 29.05.2023 submitted that
information on point no. 4 was not provided.
The CPIO clarified that point no. 4 was not specific and therefore, information
sought was not comprehensible.

On perusal of the reply it was noted that information on point 4 was provided
on 24.08.2021. Moreover, as per written submissions dated 23.05.2023
submitted by the CPIO in respect of point no. 4, it was requested to the
complainant to resubmit information sought specifying the information on the
facilities sought as the query was not specific.
The complainant was asked to explain what information he is pressing for in
point no. 4, to which he could not justify any specific information.
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
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 part of


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 31/12/2024 seeking the following
information:
1. िहंमाशु दवारा 13/12/22 मे अपने नमबर UAN NO. 101305762446 PF/EPS ACCOUNT
NUMBER DSNHP*************4573 मे ǜाईनीग डेट िमस मैच सुधार हेतु एक आवेदन िदया था
उस आवेदन पर िक गई सभी कायŊवाही की छायाŮित फाईल नािटंग सिहत उपलɩ करवाये।
2. आगर इस आवेदन पर कोई कायŊवाही नही िक गई है तो अिधिनयम की धारा 4(1) (D) के तहत सुचना
दे।

The following were present:-
Appellant: Surender Kumar (Authorized Representative) Present on VC
Respondent: Avinash Singh APFC/CPIO participated in the hearing in Person.
The Authorized Representative reiterates the facts of the case and further submits
that incorrect information has been provided by the Respondent. The Respondent
submits that point wise reply under the provisions of the RTI Act has been
provided.

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings
during hearing observes that under the RTI Act the CPIO can only provide
information which is available in the record. Under the RTI Act “information” is
defined under Section 2(f) which states: “information” means any material in any

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/119575                            Page 3 of 4

form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, ad vices, press
releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models,
data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private
body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the
time being in force.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Anr. Vs.
Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.) had held that:

“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI
Act. The RTI Act provides access to a

Section 2(f)
section 3
section 2
section 8
section 2(f)
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi


FACTS
The matter is heard today dated 9.1.2012. Alppellant not present. The Army is
represented by Col. Binod Kumar. He is heard.
i
2. It is noticed that in the RTI apptication date,l 18'h August, 2010, the appellant .
has raised issues regarding a number of policy matters relating to the Defence
Forces viz their retirement at young age as against civilian employees who retire at
the age of 58 (now 60 years); lack of re-employment opportunities for ex service-
men after retirement; and non-availability of lodn facilities for ex-servicemen etc.
Suffice it to say that the appellant has not sough$ any specific information. He has
simply raised questions about the policy of the.Government regarding the Defence.
Forces. These matters, strictly speaking, do not fall in the ambit of the RTI Act.
These are policy matters and need to be taken pp with the Central Government.
Hencp, the appellant is advised to take up 'these matters with the Central
Government, if so advised
'!
3. The.matter is b


The appeal is disposed of.
the parties.
8.
The respondent is directed to provide to [he appellant, within 30
days of this orderr, the status of the action takqn on the representation
made by the apfiellant, t}re documents examinid, and the findings in
context of the RTI application.
I
Copy of decisiop be given free of cost to
U1i C"r*r-
(vi$i Sharma)
Commlssloner
Authenticated true copy
(V.K. Sharma|
Designated Oflicer


6.
The commission directs the Plo to provide a specific response to query no.1
and 4 of the RTI within ten days from date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)


The Complaint is disposed off.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29 July 2010


Considering the facts of the case, the submissions made by both the parties and to
provide a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties,
the Commission directs the Registrar, CIC to also issue notice of hearing to DCIT
(Exemptions), Ghaziabad and the Third Party i.e. S.J.S. Public School under
Section 19(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 in addition to the Complainant and the
Respondent and fix the next date of hearing in the matter within a period of 03
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Section 8
Section 19(4) of the RTI Act
section 8


Considering the facts of the case, the submissions made by both the parties and to
provide a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parti.es, the
Commission directs the Registrar, CIC to also issue notice of hearing to the Third
Party, the Trust Khanqha-e-Hazarath Qutb-e-VelloreF{azarath Makkan, Vellore under
Section 19(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 il addition to the Appellant and the Respondent
and fix the next date of hearing in the matter w'ithin 03 weeks from the date of receipt
ofthis order.
Note: Subsequently, the Registrar, CIC vide its letter dated O4.O7.2OL7 issued a
notice for hearing on 25.07.2017. However, the afore-mentioned notice was not
senred on the third parties. Subsequently, the Registrar, CIC, vide its letter
dated O6.OA.2OL7 issued a fresh notice of hearing to all concerned parties
including the third party to appear for the hearing on O6.O9.2017.
Page 2 of 3

Section 8(1)(e)
Section 8(l)
Section 19(a) of the RTI Act


11. The Commission finds that the RTI application dated 13.10.2017 as
addressed to PIO, Dr. RML Hospital was not replied to by the PIO. Specific
directions of FAA were flouted. No tangible reasons for unavailability of
records or statutory exemptions were relied upon. The reply of PIO dated
12.01.2018 is thus patently unlawful.

12. Similar is the fate of RTI application dated 18.10.2017 addressed to PIO,
GGSIPU. The PIO failed to reply in first instance and despite directions of
the FAA, the appellant was kept from securing information, which was
crucial to him. Awaiting approval of Vice Chancellor, GGSIPU for
complying with FAO was patently unlawful.

13. The Commission is not a forum to conduct a fact finding on the issued
surrounding the present appeals. The respondent


The issue of alleged malpractices committed by MBDAV Sr.
Secondary School, Yusuf Sarai, Delhi, which happens to be a
Govt. aided school, is at the core of all the RTI applications under
reference. It is alleged by the appellant that the land beneath the
aforesaid school was donated to it for running a Govt. Aided
School but due to greed of management, an unaided school with
the identical name, namely DAV Model School has come up
within the same premises as used by the Govt. aided school. The
complainant states to have addressed all the RTI applications to
unearth the alleged unholy nexus between various respondents
hitherto. It is specific contention of the complainant that the
Directorate of Education has failed to exercise its supervisory
duties effectively and such lapses coupled with denial of
information in the present cases depict that the Dte. Of Education
has not bothered to act upon the alarming situation of fall in pupil
strength of the Govt. aided school. He s


The complainant has sought the following information with reference to the
final settlement statement attached to the RTI application:
a.
Provide a copy of proof / document of pending electricity/ Gas bill at PHL
WR (Mumbai location) against which an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been
shown as outstanding.
b.
Provide the description along with a copy of the proof / document for
which and amount of Rs. 11,050/- has been shown as ‘’NR Outstanding
(11,050)’’.
c.
Provide a copy of the Rules for grant of festival advance to the
employees in PHL, including coverage of employees to whom it is extended.

2

Provide a copy of the office order for sanction of festival advance to the
complainant in the year 2019 and details of festival advance against which an
amount of Rs. 52798/- ha

The complainant was aggrieved over non-receipt of information from the CPIO
and the FAA.
The
CPIO
reiterated
the
averments
made
by
him
in
File
No.
CIC/PHHLT/C/2022/641951. His undated written submissions was taken on the
record of the Commission.

On a perusal of the entire record of the case and after hearing the submissions
of the parties during the course of hearing, the Commission held that the
findings,
observations
and
decision
passed
in
File
No.
CIC/PHHLT/C/2022/641951 decided on 09.05.2023 shall squarely apply to the
facts of the present case.
For all the reasons recorded above, no adverse action against the CPIO is
warranted under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)


The complainant failed to attend the hearing of the Commission despite due
service of the notice of hearing sent to her vide speed post no.
ED364943915IN. She was neither available in the NIC Studio nor on the phone
call during the scheduled time of the hearing.
The CPIO, DGT submitted that qua queries no. 3 and 4, the complainant was
informed that due to administrative reasons, the matter for which she was
seeking information, was on hold. The complainant was also apprised by the
CPIO while furnishing the reply that the updated status could be obtained from
the NIMI portal.
The written submissions of the CPIO dated 04.05.2023, 10.05.2023 and the
authorization letter dated 16.05.2023 were taken on the record of the
Commission.

On a perusal of the case records, the Commission noted that a point-wise reply
as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 was given by the CPIO on 23/05/2022.
The CPIO’s reply was appropriate and on time. Therefore, no deficiency was
found in the said reply. During the hearing, the CPIO apprised the Commission
that the copies of the written submissions were also sent to the complainant
through email. Therefore, in the view of the Commission, all reasonable steps
were taken by the CPIO in the instant case.
Apropos the contents of the complaint, the Commission observed that the
instant mat
For all the reasons recorded above, no adverse action against the CPIO is
warranted under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005.  The
complaint is disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)

3


The appellant/complainant has sought the following information related to
complaint no. 197267/2022/vigilance-7 for the period from 20/04/2022 to
05/07/2022:

The Commission at the outset clubbed together the instant second appeal and
complaint for hearing and final disposal as both the cases emanated from a
common RTI application dated 05.07.2022.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and after hearing the submissions of
both the parties, the Commission observed that the appellant/complainant
was
seeking
details
pertaining
to
a
complaint
bearing
no.
197267/2022/vigilance-7.
As transpired during the hearing, the said complaint was against Ms. Komal
Goel, SSO and the FAA vide order dated 24.08.2022 in para 5 had provided the
status
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Commission upholds the reply given by
the respondent and holds that no adverse action against the CPIO is warranted
under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The instant complaint and second appeal are disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)

RTI Cell, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development, Krishi Bhawan, Delhi - 110001


The complainant in his complaint had disputed the denial of discount on Broad
Band Plan which was otherwise offered to the Central Govt. pensioner by the
respondent authority. He however failed to attend the hearing despite due
service of the notice of hearing. The written submissions of the complainant
dated 17.05.2023 was taken into consideration by the Commission while
deciding the instant case.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise response was given to the complainant
vide letter dated 12.04.2022. She stated that the disclosable information was
made available to the complainant and the queries which did not conform to
Section-2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 were not responded to. She further stated
that the complainant was apprised that two discount offers on Broad Band
Plan Subscription could not be clubbed as per the extant policy and the
complainant was availing the maximum possible discount.

On a perusal of the case records, the Commission noted that a point-wise reply
as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 was provided by the CPIO vide letter
dated 12.04.2022. The Commission does not find any infirmity in the reply
given by the CPIO and the order passed by the FAA. The CPIO also clarified the
extant policy relating to the discount on the Broad Band Subscription during
the hearing.
Apropos the contents of the complaint, the Commission observed that the
instant matter was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the
Commission was only required to ascertain if the
For all the reasons recorded above, no adverse action against the CPIO is
warranted under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005.  The
complaint is disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)


The appellant/complainant has sought the following information related to
complaint no. J00056915 filed with respect to the affairs of M/s Ram Asra Mal
& Company Private Limited:

The Commission at the outset clubbed together the instant second appeal and
complaint for hearing and final disposal as both the cases emanated from a
common RTI application dated 30/05/2022.
Keeping in view the facts of the cases and after hearing the submissions of
both the parties, the Commission observed that the appellant/complainant
inter alia had sought for inspection of the files pertaining to a complaint
bearing
no.
J00056915.
As
per
the
records
of
the
cases,
the
appellant/complainant conducted the inspection of the relevant records and
the CPIO supplied the copy of
For all the reasons recorded above, the Commission upheld the reply given by
the CPIO and holds that no adverse action against the CPIO is warranted under
the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The instant complaint and second appeal are disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)

The Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana, 4th Floor, IFCI Tower,


The complainant has sought the following information:

The complainant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice
on 20.05.2023 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED365670524IN.
The CPIO submitted that on 10.08.2022 Form 16 was provided and there was
no delay, however, he could not explain why no reply was provided giving him
the sought for information   in respect of the present RTI application.

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated
24.08.2022 replied to the appellant and stated that the information is related
to Bills Section, FCI Hqrs. Therefore, the RTI was transferred to the concerned
Section. The first appeal was also transferred on 10.10.2022. The CPIO, Bills
Section could not explain why no reply was provided till date.
A strict warning is issued to Sameeran Karmakar, the concerned CPIO for not
replying to the RTI application as per the mandate of the RTI Act. Any RTI
application should be replied on time even if no action is required on the
subject matter or even if the issue has been resolved and informed to the
complainant through other means .The CPIO is advised to remain careful in
future.

The com


The appellant/complainant has sought the following information pertaining to
the office of the CEO, NSDC, New Delhi and specifically to the CPGRAMS
grievance registered vide No. DOSKD/E/2022/00798 dated 14.06.2022 closed
on 16.08.2022:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO and the FAA had
provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. The appellant was asked to
explain what was the flaw in respect of each point of the RTI application he is
contesting, to which he raised a grievance relating to CPGRAMS grievance
registered vide No. DOSKD/E/2022/00798 dated 14.06.2022 which was closed
on 16.08.2022.
The Commission could not find any flaw in the CPIO’s reply. The reply given
was found just and proper. Hence, no action lies. It is relevant to mention here
that a grievance closed on the CPGRAM portal
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide the certified
copy of the closure report to the appellant within 7 days from the date of
receipt of the order.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)


The appellant/complainant has sought following information regarding affairs
of Company M/s Ram Asra Mal And Company Private Limited (CIN:
U74899DL1989PTC038143),  wherein a letter dated 23.06.2022 has been
issued by the ROC, Delhi & Haryana seeking permission to initiate action under
Sec.206(3) of the Companies Act 2013, against the said company:

2

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated
14.09.2022 replied to the appellant and stated that as per the inputs received
from the concerned section of the office, he was informed as under:
 “Point no. 1 to 7- It is to inform that, ROC, Delhi has submitted its report dated
22.06.2022 to the Directorate in the matter of Ram Asra Mal and Company
Private Limited and the Directorate, vide letter dated 12.08.2022, and has
sought instructions in the matter from the Directorate General of Corporate
Affairs and the same is awaited. As the final decision about
The CPIO is accordingly directed to take assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from
the custodian i.e DG office and provide a revised reply to the applicant in
which, copy of letter 23.06.2023 should be provided and if denied the same
should be justified with proper exemption clause, the copy of the response
letter, as well as the action taken to be sent to the applicant within 10 days
from the


The complainant has sought the following information related to conducting of
management review once in every 12 months:
(1)
The date on which, management review as per clause 4.15.1 of ISO/IEC
17025 was conducted in the year 2021.
(2) to (5)
Similar information for the years 2017 to 2020.

The complainant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice
on 31.05.2023 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED365623541IN. He was
also contacted over phone but had not answered. His request for change of VC
venue was also acceded to and VC slot was provided at NIC Jaipur. Despite the
same, he failed to attend the hearing.
The CPIO could not explain the delay in providing the reply as notings are not
available.

The CPIO on 11.06.2022 replied that as stated by the competent authority,
there is no clause as 4.15.1 in ISO/IEC 17025:2017, the prevailing standard for
General Requirements for the competence of Testing and Calibration Lab. The
reply was not comprehensible and therefore, the CPIO was asked to explain.
The CPIO explained that information in respect of point no. 1 has become
obsolete. As far as points no. 2-5 are concerned, he reiterated the reply as
mentioned in the written submissions dated 02.06.2023.
The written submissions dated 02.06.2023 was proper and therefore, the CPIO
is directed to send the same to the complainant for his information within 7
days from the date of receipt of this order.
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
the information has been denied with a mala


The complainant/appellant has sought following information regarding
complaint No. J00056915 pertaining to the affairs of M/s Ram Asra Mal & Co.

2

Pvt. Ltd. (CIN: U74899DL1989PTC038143), being investigated by Sh. Alok
Pandey, ICLS, O/o ROC, NCT Of Delhi & Haryana:

The Commission observed that a point-wise reply was provided to the
applicant vide letter dated 01.09.2022 and a proper explanation was given for

3

denying the information at that stage. However, the CPIO provided the present
status during the hearing where she stated that during this duration the appeal
was finalised and was received on 20.04.2023 and the same was forwarded to
the applicant on 30.05.2023 including the report. It is relevant to mention here
that Sec 8(1)(h) applicability was not amplified in the previous reply and as of
now the matter was finalised, therefore, repo
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to send a revised reply
including the report as discussed above within 7 days from the date of receipt
of this order.

The cases are disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)


The appellant/complainant has made a reference to the statement made by
Mr. Ankur Yadav, FAA, at point No.6 of his Order dated 24-09-2022, in respect
of his another first appeal.  With reference to the same, appellant has sought
the following information:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO failed to provide a
copy of the order. Information sought in points no. 1 and 2 was not addressed
properly by the CPIO as well as the FAA. A revised reply as per the availability
of record should be provided.
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to send a suitable
revised point-wise reply enclosing the copy of the sought for order to the
appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The cases are disposed of accordingly.

 Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)


File no.: CIC/CHRDG/C/2022/653614
The Complainant has sought the following information for point no. 1, 2 and 3
of the RTI application:

The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and
his RTI applications are required for greater transparency in the functioning of
the organisation.
The CPIO reiterated the written submissions dated 12.06.2023. The CPIO
pointed out that since the day the complainant was posted to Chandigarh he
started to file RTI applications seeking information on almost 150 questions.
The same shows his grievance towards the organisation and no public interest
in seeking such voluminous information.

7

The RTI applications listed above were all duly replied to by the CPIO.
Moreover, as discussed during the hearing the complainant is an aggrieved
employee and is harassing the public authority by filing a series of RTI
applications where he seeks all and sundry information which are not only
voluminous but also cover very large period of time . The written submissions
dated 12.06.2023 of the CPIO enumerated a detailed description of the motive
of the employee cum applicant in filing so many RTI applications. Keeping in
view  the same, the Commission finds these complaints unjustifiable
The Commission observed that the present complaints were filed under
Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to
ascertain if 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 part

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Library Avenue, Pusa, New Delhi-110012


The Commission is in receipt of written submissions from the CPIO dated
17.06.2023. However, there is no mention as to whether the CIC’s order dated
12.03.2020 had been complied with or not.
On a query to the CPIO as to whether they have acted upon the above
mentioned order and had provided the available information to the appellant,
she submitted that on 11.07.2022 a request was made for a review of the
order. It was noted that the same was rejected in August 2022, however
despite that, the order was not complied with.
The present CPIO is issued a last warning to comply with the CIC order within 7
days from the date of receipt of this order failing which, she and the then CPIO
shall be liable for penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act and no further intimation shall
be given to them about the same.
The showcause-proceeding and non-compliance application is disposed of
accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/105806                                                                           Page 2 of 5
“During treatment in CGHS empanelled hospital, if a Doctor prescribe any
test/scan and that test is not available in any CGHS empanelled
Hospital/Lab in
the city. Since the test is essential for treatment and the same is done by Pvt
Lab (Non-empannelled).
Please provide the guidelines/OM for reimbursement of this kind of test.”

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, a suitable reply has been given to the Complainant vide letter
dated 08.04.2026, wherein the relevant information so has been provided.
7.
A written submission has been received from Dr. S. Murthy, Nodal
Officer/RTI, vide letter dated 08.04.2026, a copy of which has been sent to
the Complainant and the same has been taken on record. The releva


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.08.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:
“1. NMC has issued a Notice on 23/07/2024 regarding Impersonation of
attendances in AEBAS in medical colleges/institutions reg on NMC portal.

CIC/NMCOM/C/2025/609805                                                                           Page 2 of 5
2. Please provide a photocopy of all relevant Note-Sheets list of colleges
information received etc. from all sources including list of Faculty using silicon
finger prints available.
3. If any FIR Criminal proceedings initiated against the Faculty/College /
Management, a copy of all such proceedings.”

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Under Secretary, Shri Manish Kumar Mittal,
Under Secretary, Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Manager and Shri Subodh Kumar,
CPIO-cum- Under Secretary, attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant
information as sought in point No. 2 of the RTI Application.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the
Complainant in the instant RTI Application is not available in the records of

CIC/NMCOM/C/2025/609805                                                                           Page 3 of 5
Postgraduate Medical Education Board and the custodian is Medical
Assessment and Rating Board (MARB).
7.
Shri Pankaj Kumar, Under Secretary, submitted that the relevant
information based on available records has been given to the Complainant
vide letter dated 13.02.2025, stating as under:
“It is informed that the rele

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 17.08.2024 (offline) seeking
the following information:
“LOA/23-24/40, dtd. 25.05.2023, NIT NO. 63, WON NO. 421, Dt.
20/06/2023, काय का नाम Dismantling of Old delivery line and relaying of 8

CIC/NMCOM/C/2025/609805                                                                           Page 2 of 5
Nos. M.S. delivery line size 8"/10"/12" (06 Nos. Along the conveyor stream
and 02 Nos. For reservoir/tanker) at Kusmunda Mine. के संदभᭅ मᱶ जानकारी
बावत्।
भारत सरकार ᳇ारा पाᳯरत सूचना अिधकार अिध० कᳱ धारा 6 के तहत 10 ᳲबंदुᲐ मᱶ
जानकारी चाहता ᱠं :-
उᲦ वकᭅ ऑडᭅर पर कायᭅ कब िलया गया, या नहᱭ।
उपर वᳶणᭅत कायᭅ, ऑडᭅर पर उ᭨लेिखत ᭭थल पर ही ᳰकया गया, या ᭭थान बदलकर। अगर
᭭थान बदलकर कायᭅ कराया गया तो अनुमोदन कᳱ स᭜यािपत कापी ᮧदान करᱶ।
उᲦ वकᭅ ऑडᭅर

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Ankit Bazag, CPIO-cum-Assistant Manager, attended the
hearing through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the directions passed
by the FAA, the CPIO has provided the relevant information containing 23
pages, to the Complainant vide letter dated 16.01.2025.
7.
A written submission has been received from CPIO, vide letter dated
22.01.2026, a copy of which has been sent to the Complainant and the
same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as
under:
“महोदय/महोदया,
उƅ पũानुसार Ůेिषत पũ CIC Hearing नोिटस संबंिधत दˑावेजों के संदभŊ मŐ
िनɻ िबंदुओं पर Ůितवेदन Ůˑुत िकया जाता है:
1. अधोहˑाƗरी के कायाŊलय मŐ उपलɩ दˑावेजों की जांच करने से ǒात Šआ
िक आवेदक ŵी हरबंश िसंह राठौर Ȫारा िकया गया आवेदन पũ Ţमांक 027
कŐ ūीय लोक सूचना अिधकारी एसईसीएल मुƥालय - िबलासपुर को िदनांक
05/09/2024 को Ůाɑ Šआ था िजसको कŐ ūीय लोक सूचना


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2024 (offline) seeking
the following information:

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/110397                                                                           Page 2 of 6
“1. ᮧाथᱮ ने संलᲨ ᮧाथᭅना पᮢ ᳰदनांक 30.01.2024 हाडा क᭥पलीट फैमली डेटल कैयर हाउस
न० 66 ᮧथम तल िᮧतमपूरा ᳰद᭨ली 110034 सीजीएचएस० पैनल के िवᱧ᳍ िशकायत कᳱ थी
मगर िशकायत के बारे मᱶ आवेदक को कोई सचनाएं नही दी गई कृपया ᮧाथᱮ को सूिचत करे।
2. डा0 हांडाज के िवᱧ᳍ कᳱ गई जांच कᳱ ᮧितिलपी
3. डा० हांडज के िवᱧ᳍ कᳱ गई कायᭅवाही कᳱ ᮧितिलपी
4. डा० हांडा ᳇ारा सन 2013, 2015, 2021 व 2023 व अ᭠य सभी ᳰकया गया आवेदक के दांतो
का इलाज आᳰद कᳱ इलाज कᳱ ᮧितिलपी व िबल कᳱ ᮧितिलपी”

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Dr. Charu Jain, CPIO-cum-Joint Director and Dr. Vedantam Subash,
Senior CMO, attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant
information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6.
The Respondent submitted that initially their office has not received the
averred representation from the Complainant on which he was seeking
action taken and accordingly, a suitable reply was given vide letter dated
02.12.2024, stating as under:

CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/110397                                                                           Page 3 of 6
“मांगी गयी सूचना के संबंȠ मे आपको सूिचत िकया जाता हœ िक डॉ हांडाज
कɼलीट फैमली डेȴल केयर हाउस के İखलाफ आपके Ȫारा की गयी
िशकायत पũ इस Ůकोʿ को Ůाɑ नहीं Šई है। अतः उपरोƅ संबंȠ मŐ आपसे
अनुरोध हœ िक आप अपने िशकायत पũ सारे दˑावेजों के साथ सीजीएचएस
भवन, केȾीय सरकार ˢा˖ योजना (मु.), आर. के. पुरम, सेƃर-13, नई

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


1.
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2024
(online) seeking the following information:
RTI application filed on
:
20.12.2024
CPIO replied on
:
Not on record
First appeal filed on
:
28.01.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order :
Not on record
2nd Appeal and Complaint dated :
27.03.2025 & 05.03.2025

CIC/CGHSD/A/2025/614569 & CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/611065
Page 2 of 4

“1. Timeline for Indented Medicines Across Cities:
What is the timeframe for supplying indented medicines under CGHS in various
cities across India from the date of prescription?
2. Timeline for Indented Medicines at Kolkata Salt Lake IC Block Dispensary:
What is the timeframe for supplying indented medicines from the date of
prescription at the Salt Lake IC Block Dispensary, located at IC

The following were present:-

Appellant/Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Srinivas Murthy, Nodal Officer, attended the hearing in person.
Dr. Saurabh Chattopadhaya, CMO, attended the hearing through VC.
5.
The Appellant/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 Appellant/Complainant
vide letter dated 16.04.2026, stating as under:

CIC/CGHSD/A/2025/

8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case
and perusal of the records, observes that the answering Respondent has
neither received the instant RTI Application nor received the First Appeal

CIC/CGHSD/A/2025/614569 & CIC/CGHSD/C/2025/611065
Page 4 of 4

at the initial stage on the online CGHS portal of Delhi since the
Appellant/Complainant has filed RTI Application before Central
Government Health Scheme. It is pertinent to mention that the Public
Authority i.e., Central Government Health Scheme was inadvertently
opened by the DOPT and is left abandoned.
9.
The Commission further observes that upon receipt of the hearing notice
from the Commission, the answering Respondent has provided a suitable
reply vide letter dated 16.04.2026. Hence, no intervention of the
Commission is required in the instant case.
10.
Be that as it may, the Commission observes that there is a parallel RTI
portal for the Respondent Public Authority, whic

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


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2024 (online) seeking
the following information:
“As per Rti act sec 2 subsection i,j request to provide information regarding
Ashwini Rural Medical College Hospital, Solapur, Maharashtra

CIC/NMCOM/C/2025/608111                                                                           Page 2 of 4
1) List of fulltime teaching staff
2) Adhar enable biometric attendance records of all the teaching staff from 1
January 2024 to 30 June 2024”

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, CPIO-cum-Consultant, attended the
hearing in person.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant in point No. 2 of the RTI
Application had sought attendance records and the same is personal
information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section
8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. He further volunteered to provided information on
point No. 1 of the RTI Application to the Complainant based on available
records.

CIC/NMCOM/C/2025/608111                                                                           Page 3 of 4


1.
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2025 (offline) seeking
the following information:
“िवषय: 52 खदानᲂ मᱶ च᭡पे-च᭡पे पर थडᭅ आई (CCTV) नजर सी.एम.डी. ने लगायी इसके
बारे मᱶ जानकारी दीिजए।
अजᭅदार: ᳰकशोर जयराम चकोले
136 आयुवᱷᳰदक लेआउट सᲥरदरा नागपुर 440024

CIC/WCLTD/C/2025/105750                                                                           Page 2 of 6
1. 52 खदानᲂ मᱶ च᭡पे-च᭡पे पर थडᭅ आई नजर सी.एम.डी. ने कौन से साल मᱶ लगायी
जानकारी दीिजए।
2. 52 खदानᲂ मᱶ च᭡पे-च᭡पे पर थडᭅ आई नजर लगाने मᱶ कंपनी का ᳰकतना पैसा खचᭅ ᱟआ
एᳯरया वाईस खदान वाईस जानकारी दीिजए।
3. यह कायᭅ ᳰकस कंपनी को ᳰदया कोटेशन कॉपी के साथ जानकारी दीिजए।
4. ᳰकस ᳰकस कंपनी ने इस कायᭅ के िलए टᱶडर भरे थे। टᱶडर कॉपी कंपनी के नाम पता सिहत
जानकारी दीिजए।
5. िजस कंपनी को यह कायᭅ सᲅपा गया उसके साथ कंप

The following were present:-

CIC/WCLTD/C/2025/105750                                                                           Page 3 of 6

Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Soni, CPIO-cum-Manager, attended the hearing
through VC.
5.
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that the queries raised by the Complainant in
the instant RTI Application is beyond the ambit of information as per
Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and accordingly a suitable reply has been given
to the Complainant vide letter dated 04.02.2025. She added that the
information with respect to point No. 6 of the RTI Application is
confidential.
7.
The Commission interjected and counselled the Respondent that the
information sought by the Complainant clearly falls within the definition of
“information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and denial of information
to the Complainant under the garb of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act is not
tenable. The

Section 2
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 Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2023 seeking the
following information:

Page 2 of 81

“Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya मे वष[ 2017 से काय[रत outsource
Agency Endevour Systems and Consultancy Service से उनकȧ ǓनयुिÈत के
समय ͩकये गये अनुबंध, Ǔनयमावलȣ , शत[ इÛयाǑद समèत उपलÞध दèतावेजɉ
कȧ Ĥमाͨणत ĤǓतͧलͪप ”

The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Atul Nijhawan present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Brij Bhushan Singh, Legal Advisor/Nodal CPIO present
through video conference.
395. Written statements of the CPIO in response to each of the instant
Second Appeal are taken on record, vide which the CPIO provided the chain of
events and reply against each RTI application in question given to the
Appellant.
396. The Commission at the outset informed the Appellant that considering
the multiple number of RTI applications, First Appeal and thereafter, Second
Appeal which are listed for hearing today, it is noted that information sought
by the Appellant are voluminous in nature, collation and compilation of which
apparently divert the time and resources of the Respondent Public Authority
and the contents of the RTI application under reference reveals that majority
of information sought attracts applicability of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act
pertaining to personal i

398. Heard the parties.
399. The Commission upon perusal of materials of the instant Appeals on
record and hearing the parties observed that although the Appellant has filed
numerous RTI applications with overlapping queries seeking similar
information and that too which contains elements of personal information of
third- parties and hence, are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j)
of the RTI Act, 2005. However, during the course of hearing, the Appellant
restricted his contentions on two points. Firstly, regarding delay on the part of
the CPIO in giving reply beyond stipulated time frame, for which Appellant
sought action against the CPIO. Secondly, regarding denial of information by
the CPIO without any justification/ explanation in this regard.
400. As regards the aspect of delay in response to RTI applications, the
Commission finds that the information sought by the querist could not be
provided by the CPIO for one or other reasons and not automatically leadi


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 23.11.2024(offline) seeking
the following information:
“1) यह कᳱ बोकारो थमᭅल पावर ᭭टेशन के ऐश पᲅड से ᳰदनांक 01.04.21 से 31.03.23 तक
छाई िनकाल कर फᱶकने का काम िजस भी कंपनी ने ᳰकया था।
RTI application filed on
: 23.11.2024
CPIO replied on
: Not on record
First appeal filed on
: 20.01.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record
2nd Appeal dated
: 08.04.2025

CIC/DVCOR/A/2025/112145

Page 2 of 5

यह कᳱ इस कायᭅ को करने के िलय िजतने भी मजदूर एवं ᮝक ᮟाइवर, खलासी, पोकलेन
ऑपरेटर ने काम ᳰकया था उन सारे मजदूरᲂ का इपीएफ एवं ईएसआई से संबंिधत द᭭तावेजᲂ
कᳱ छाया ᮧित देने कᳱ कृपा कᳱ जाए।”

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Sangya Dash, CPIO-cum-Manager and Ms. Tanisha Silvi, then
CPIO-cum-Manager, attended the hearing through VC.
5.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6.
The Respondent submitted that neither the instant RTI Application nor
the First Appeal has been received in their Kolkata office and Bokaro
Office. Upon receipt of the same along with the hearing notice from the
Commission, a suitable reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has
been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 16.03.2026, which is as
under:
“कृपया RTI ए᭡लीकेशन मᱶ पूछे गए सवालᲂ को नीचे देखᱶ और RTI ए᭍ट के तहत
ज᭨द से ज᭨द जानकारी ᳰदया गया है:-
᭡वाइंट (1) के अनुगामी मेल के उᱫर के संदभᭅ मᱶ, िवᱫ वषᭅ 2021-22 और 2022-
23 (01/04/2021 से 31.03.2023) के दौरान डीवीसी, बीटीपीएस पर तालाब कᳱ राख
िनकासी मᱶ काम करने वाली एजᱶिसयᲂ ने नीचे ᳰदया गया है/With reference to
reply for trailing mail of point (1), the agencies worked in pond ash ev

8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case
and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent Public Authority
has neither received the instant RTI Application nor the First Appeal from
the Appellant at the initial stage and therefore, no timely response was
given to the Appellant. Upon receipt of the hearing notice from the
Commission, the CPIO has provided a suitable reply in terms of the
provisions of the RTI Act, to the Appellant vide letter dated 16.03.2026.
Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.02.2025(online) seeking
the following information:
“I am filing this request under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to seek
information regarding Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited's compliance with
TRAI regulations. Please provide the following details:
License Fee Compliance
Total license fees paid by Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited over the past five
years.
Any discrepancies or violations identified in the company's compliance with
TRAI's licensing fee regulations.
Regulatory Filings & Compliance Reports
Copies of compliance reports submitted by the company to TRAI regarding
adherence to TRAI's policies.
Any penalties, warnings, or notices issued by TRAI to the company regarding
regulatory violations.
Agreement Registrat

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Sh. Shakti Singh, CPIO-cum - Under Secretary, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi, Sh. Jitendra Kumar Joshi, CPIO, TRAI, Lt. Col Abhishek Kumar Singh,
PIO, TRAI and Sh. Shishir Kansal, PIO, TRAI attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Appellant did not attend the hearing.
6.
The Respondent CPIO, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
submitted that information sought is related to the ISP service/internet
business and the DAS Section of this Ministry does not deal with matters
like ISP License/Internet services. He further submitted that the same is
dealt with by Department of Telecommunications.
7.
The Commission intervened and asked respondent CPIO, TRAI to explain
his position with respect to information sought by the appellant to which
respondent CPIO, TRAI stated that TRAI does not deal with the said

CIC/TRAOI/A/2025/615977

Page 4 of 5

matters pertaining to licensing agreement of individual and intern

10.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing respondents 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 30.04.2026. 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)


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.11.2024(online) seeking
the following information:
“The following information are sought under The Right to Information Act (RTI)
of 2005: 1. Please provide a copy of the letter Received dated 16th August, 2023
from Regional passport office regarding Confirmation of Identity Certificate
RTI application filed on
: 19.11.2024
CPIO replied on
: NIL
First appeal filed on
: 27.12.2024
First Appellate Authority’s order : 26.01.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 15.04.2025

CIC/DGTRG/A/2025/617337

Page 2 of 4

issued in respect of Shri Surendra Kumar Meena. 2. Please provide the letter in
which the passport office has asked for any residential address proof and
duration of residential address of Shri Surendra Kumar Meena 3.

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, CPIO-cum-Under Secretary, DGT, Kaushal
Bhavan attended the hearing in person.
5.
The Appellant did not attend the hearing. A withdrawal request has been
received from the appellant vide letter dated 07.05.2026, stating as
under:
“With reference to the hearing notice issued in the above-mentioned case, it is
respectfully submitted that the respondent CPIO has agreed to provide the
requested information.
In view of the above, I do not wish to pursue the present second appeal further.
Therefore, it is requested that the appeal may kindly be treated as withdrawn.
Submitted for kind consideration and necessary action please.”

6.
In view of the submission made by the Appellant vide letter dated
07.05.2026, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)

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


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.03.2025(online) seeking
the following information:
“I, Dr. Tarun Kumar Sharma, a resident of House No. 1221, Type IV, GMCH
Campus, Sector-32, Chandigarh, Pin code: 160030, hereby request that please
provide me the following information under the Right to Information Act, 2005:
RTI application filed on
: 03.03.2025
CPIO replied on
: 28.03.2025
First appeal filed on
: 01.04.2025
First Appellate Authority’s order : 04.04.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 05.04.2025

CIC/NMCOM/A/2025/615996

Page 2 of 4

1. Whether the teaching experience gained from a Dental college is equivalent
to the teaching experience gained from an NMC/MCI-recognized medical
college, specifically for the purpose of appointment/applying for the post

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Sh. M.K. Mittal, CPIO-cum-Under Secretary attended the hearing
through VC.
5.
The Appellant stated that information sought with respect to equivalence
of teaching experience gained for the purpose of appointment of
Assistant Professor (Biochemistry) in the RTI application was not provided
by the CPIO.

CIC/NMCOM/A/2025/615996

Page 3 of 4

6.
The Respondent submitted that there are no separate rules or guidelines
with respect to the information sought and available information with
respect to dentistry along with amended portion was given to the
appellant.
7.
A written submission has been received from Sh. Manish Kumar Mittal,
CPIO, NMC vide letter dated 04.05.2026, a copy of which has been
supplied to the appellant and the same has been taken on record. The
relevant extract of the same is as under:
“
S. No.
Reply
1 and 2
In this connection, it is informed
that the CPIO is requir

8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a
suitable reply based on available records has been given by the CPIO
within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act to the
Appellant vide letter dated 28.03.2025. The Commission would like to
counsel the Appellant that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such

CIC/NMCOM/A/2025/615996

Page 4 of 4

information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or
is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is not
supposed to create or interpret information that is not a part of the
record.
9.
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 30.04.2024(offline) seeking
the following information:
RTI application filed on
: 30.04.2024
CPIO replied on
: 03.06.2024
First appeal filed on
: 08.07.2024
First Appellate Authority’s order : 16.07.2024
2nd Appeal dated
: 08.04.2025

CIC/NHAIN/A/2025/112158

Page 2 of 4

“०१. नवापूर ता. नवापूर िजला नंदुरबार शासकᳱय, अधᭅशासकᳱय एवं अ᭠य ᭭थानᲂ से रा᳦ीय
राजमागᭅ ᮓ. ६ के िलए िनकाले गए गौणखिनज कᳱ िव᭭तृत जानकारी आपके ह᭭ताᭃर से
ᮧा᳙ कᳱ जाए।
०२. उᲦ कायᭅ मᱶ ᮧारंभ से ᳰदनांक तक ᮧयुᲦ िमᲵी, मुᱧम, रेत एवं कपची कᳱ िव᭭तृत
जानकारी ᮩासमᱶ अपने ह᭭ताᭃर सिहत दे।”

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Sh. Shivaji Pawar, CPIO-cum-Project Director, NHAI attended the
hearing through VC.
5.
The Appellant stated that the information sought vide RTI application was
not provided by the CPIO in reply dated 03.06.2024.

CIC/NHAIN/A/2025/112158

Page 3 of 4

6.
The Respondent submitted that information sought is related to EPC
contract and the concerned contractor, being third party, denied to
provide the information sought by the appellant.

7.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that
the submissions made by the respondent during the hearing are accepted
as appropriate replies to the RTI query. However, the respondent has not
furnished an appropriate and point wise reply to the appellant in the reply
dated 03.06.2024. The rationale for denying information sought by the
appellant must be stated clearly along with the relevant exemption clause
of the RTI Act, along with supporting documents, as submitted by the
respondent during the course of the hearing.
8.
The Commission, therefore, directs respondent to furnish a revised reply
including all documents qua replies received from the contractor, to the
appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, within 2 weeks,
upon the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2024(online) seeking
the following information:
“Regarding SSC phase-X/selection post 2022 (SR12822- Pharmacist post)
1) How many candidates are joined in SR12822 and from which cast category.
2) how many posts are vacant and from which category.
RTI application filed on
: 28.09.2024
CPIO replied on
: Not on record
First appeal filed on
: 08.11.2024
First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record
2nd Appeal dated
: 26.03.2025

CIC/CGHSD/A/2025/110552

Page 2 of 4

3) Is Waiting list is published. (If yes then on What date and why not available
on SSC SR website AND if not then when it will be published)
4) why additional result-9 lists are published regarding SR12822 and students
from waiting list (who

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Srinivas Murthy, Nodal Officer (RTI), attended the hearing in
person.
5.
The Appellant 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 written a letter to the
custodian of the records to provide the relevant information and the
custodian i.e. CGHS, Hyderabad, has provided a suitable reply directly to
the Appellant vide letter dated 08.05.2026.
7.
A written submission has been received Dr. Sashidhar Javaji, CPIO-cum-
SMO, vide letter dated 08.05.2026, st

8.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case
and perusal of the records, observes that the answering Respondent has
neither received the instant RTI Application nor received the First Appeal
at the initial stage on the online CGHS portal of Delhi since the Appellant
has filed RTI Application before Central Government Health Scheme. It is
pertinent to mention that the Public Authority i.e., Central Government
Health Scheme was inadvertently opened by the DOPT and is left
abandoned.
9.
The Commission further observes that upon receipt of the hearing notice
from the Commission, the answering Respondent has written a letter to
the custodian of the records to provide the relevant information. The

CIC/CGHSD/A/2025/110552

Page 4 of 4

custodian of the information i.e. CGHS, Hyderabad, has provided a
suitable reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 08.05.2026.
10.
Be that as it may, the Commission observes that there is a parallel RT


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2024(offline) seeking
the following information:
“(1) अᱨणा टो᭡पो डी.ए.᭪ही. ᭭कूल टीचर को 2ए Ფाटᭅर अलॉटमᱶट ᳰकया गया है तो उसकᳱ अलॉटमᱶट
कᳱ छायाᮧित उपल᭣ध कराने कᳱ कृपा करᱶ।
RTI application filed on
: 21.10.2024
CPIO replied on
: 20.12.2024
First appeal filed on
: 25.11.2024
First Appellate Authority’s order : 06.01.2025
2nd Appeal dated
: 11.04.2025

CIC/SECFL/A/2025/112521

Page 2 of 5

(2) के. पांडे के ᳇ारा 2एं-114 कब कंपनी को हे᭛डओ᭪हर ᳰकया गया हे᭛डओ᭪हर कᳱ छायाᮧित
उपल᭣ध करवायᱶ।
(3) वतᭅमान समय मᱶ 2ए-114 ᳰकसे अलॉटमᱶट है।
(4) ᭍या िजस ᳞िᲦ को 2ए-114 अलॉटमᱶट है वह इस Ფाटᭅर के िलए पाᮢ हᱹ।
(5) 1बी-21 एवं 1बी-23 कᳱ वतᭅमान समय कᳱ संपूणᭅ जानकारी उपल᭣ध करायᱶ।
(6) कु᭥दा कॉलोनी मᱶ सभी ᮰ेणी के िमलाकर एसईसीएल के ᳇ारा ᳰकत

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Vishwanath Sah, CPIO-cum-Manager, attended the hearing
through VC.
5.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.

CIC/SECFL/A/2025/112521

Page 3 of 5

6.
The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of the provisions
of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated
20.12.2024.
7.
The Commission interjected and asked the CPIO that what information
has been given vide letter dated 20.12.2024, he could not provide a
cogent reply.
8.
The Commission further asked the CPIO that what reply has been given to
the Appellant in compliance with the directions of the First Appellate
Authority passed vide order dated 06.01.2025, the CPIO informed that a
suitable reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated
07.01.2024 in compliance with the direction of FAA. The Commission
again asked the CPIO that First Appellate Authority’s order was dated
06.01.2025, the

10.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that in
compliance with the directions of the First Appellate Authority passed
vide order dated 06.01.2025, the CPIO in respect of point No. 1 to 5 of RTI
Application, has provided a suitable reply to the Appellant vide letter
dated 07.01.2025. However, no reply has been given to the Appellant by
the CPIO in respect of point No. 6 and 7 of the RTI Application. Therefore,
Shri Vishwanath Sah, CPIO-cum-Manager, is directed to provide a suitable
reply with respect to point No. 6 and 7 of the RTI Application, by furnishing
the statistical information to the Appellant, within three weeks from the
date of receipt of this order.
11.
The FAA to ensure its compliance.
12.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission expresses severe
displeasure against Shri Vishwanath Sah, CPIO-cum-Manager, for
appearing before the Commission completely unp


1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2024(online) seeking
the following information:
“1. I would like to obtain the following information regarding advertisement
number 18/2024 for direct recruitment:
(a) Documents/records used to identify vacancies in 39 categories.
(b) Criteria adopted for determining vacancies.
(c) Approved supporting documents for vacancy calculation.
(d) File notings related to recruitment process.
(e) Minutes of meetings held for recruitment planning.
(f) Communication with Ministry of Coal regarding recruitment.
(g) Copies of relevant Government orders/circulars.
(h) Vacancy calculation methodology.
(i) Category-wise breakup of vacancies.
(j) List of officials involved in recruitment planning.”

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri S. Senguttuvan, CPIO-cum-Chief Manager, attended the
hearing through VC.
21.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
22.
The Respondent submitted that suitable and pointwise replies with
respect to the instant RTI Applications under question have been given to
the Appellant within stipulated timeframe as per the provisions of the RTI
Act. He added that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application had sought
information about list of applicants, short listed candidate details with
name, address, application number for which CPIO invoked the Section 8
(1) (j) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the information pertaining
to the List of officials involved in recruitment process cannot be given to
the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.
23.
He apprised the Bench of the fact that the Appellant is a habitual RTI
Applicant since 2011 onwards and resident of Neyveli. It is to be

26.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case
and perusal of the records, observes that suitable and pointwise replies
with respect to the instant RTI Applications under question have been
given to the Appellant within stipulated timeframe as per the provisions
of the RTI Act by the CPIO. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is
required in the instant cases.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमाŊ िसɎा)


At the outset, it is to be seen here that the captioned Complaint is based upon
complainant’s earlier RTI application dated 15.11.2015. It is further to be seen here that
this Hon. Commission has already taken up the complainant’s earlier complaint based on
complainant’s RTI application dated 15.11.2015 dealt in file no. CIC/KY/C/2016/900297
on 07.10.2016 & 11.11.2016 and passed it’s speaking order on 11.11.2016.

Page 2 of 2

2.
The Commission has perused the nature of the issues as contained in complainant’s
present RTI application dated 15.11.2015 and complainant’s earlier RTI application of
same date and finds that both RTI applications are same. Not only this, the reply
provided by the respondents, are also same.
3.
In view of the position above and in the circumstances of case, the Commission feels
that it would be appropriate and even justified to dispose of the complainant’s
captioned complaint in terms of its earlier order dated 11.11.2016 passed in the
compla


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 14/10/2024 seeking the following
information:
“My husband MASUMBAIGARI NOORUDDIN, Aadhar Card No. **** ****
3821, and PAN Card No. ******33R, who is working in the M/S. RIMINI
STREET INDIA OPERATIONS from 19-02-2021, Whether he is continuing or
shifted to another company, (His P.F. Subscription No. AP/HYD/******/10542)
and previous P.F. Subscription No. AP/HYD/******/1802).

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Ms. Vasavi RPFC-II/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 EPF balances and details are financial and personal information
of the member's concerned. Information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship as per section 8(1)(e) and information which relates to personal
information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual as per section 8(1)(j) cannot be disclosed.

Upon perusal of the case records and the submission made during hearing it is
observed that the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of this, Commission finds it
pivotal to highlight the Delhi high Court Judgement of Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI
AND ORS, in W.P.(C) 803/2009, relevant portion of the said judgment is as
under:

“23. As discussed earlier, the "public interest" argument of the Petitioner is
premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her,
and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute to establish the truth
of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the
disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information
provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an
application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify

Sec

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Hyderabad


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 10/04/2025 seeking the following
information:
“I applied for pension, form 10D offline on 27th Dec 2024. I want
remarks/communications/noting by EPFO officers on my application since the
date of application submission till the date of this RTI reply.
I want as much information as possible. It will be fine, if PIO furnishes copy of
the entire file. I will be paying the cost incurred. Kindly treat the matter urgent. I

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC
Respondent: Ganshyam Meena CPIO/APFC and Shyamrath Bhatt Senior Social
Security Assistant participated in the hearing on VC
The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that correct
information has not been provided. The Respondent submits that the applicant
had solicited information and in reply the solicited information was sent by the
CPIO on 13.05.2025.

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/A/2025/622715                              Page 3 of 3

Commission, on the basis of submission of parties during hearing and perusal of
case records, observes that complete and appropriate reply in regards to the RTI
Application has not been furnished by the CPIO, hence 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

Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Mumbai


As per the contents of Complainant’s letter dated 22.11.2016 (submitted by Shri
Ashok C. Prakash, authorized person), Complainant intends to withdraw her Complaint
as she relied upon the statement given by the respondents that they have dispatched
all the documents as requested for. As such, Complainant requested this Commission
to allow her to withdraw her Complaint.

Page 2 of 2

2. In view of the above, the Commission finds no legal hitch in acceding to the
Complainant’s request. Thus, the Complainant’s request is hereby acceded to and her
Complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Compliant is dismissed as withdrawn.


During hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that his so called
complaint may be treated as a second appeal. On this appellant has also given his

Page 2 of 3

handwritten letter dated 22.11.2016, requesting thereby that his complaint be treated as a
second appeal & not complaint. Thus, it is being dealt with as second appeal and not as
complaint.
2.
It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 18.12.2015, sought
information from the respondents on 2 issues. Respondents, vide their responses dated
29.01.2016, 17.03.2016 & 01.03.2016, allegedly not provided the required information to
the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on
07.04.2016 before the FAA, who could not take up the same for its disposal for the
reasons best known to him.
3.
The Commission posed a query to Shri Tej Pal Singh, Asst. Director, as to whether first
appeal dated 07.04.2016 filed by the appellant under s


At the outset, it is stated here that this Bench of CIC, vide its earlier order dated
21.07.2016, in file No. CIC/KY/C/2016/000117, disposed of earlier Second Appeal by
observing as under:
“In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete
and categorical information, issue-wise, to the appellant as per his RTI application,
in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of
receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4)
of the RTI Act 2005 may also be invoked in the matter.”
2.
It is pertinent to mention here that incompliance of Hon. CIC’s earlier order dated
21.07.2016, respondent’s vide their subsequent responses dated 17.08.2016,
26.08.2016 & 09.11.2016, provided the required information to the complainant on his
RTI application dated 21.09.2015.
3.
It is pertinent to mention here that most important criterion among the other criteria
mentioned under Section 18(1) (a


After hearing detailed submissions of the parties and perusal of records, it is evident
that main angst of the appellant is centred around the denial of medical and
financial assistance by the Respondents in handling the rare and life threatening
disease encountered by his only son. It is his case that lack of awareness and timely
assistance, crippling Rules and regulations deprived his son of the proper treatment
and he succumbed to the disease. Admittedly, no rule or policy can be higher than
the life of a person. However, in this case, like in many other similarly placed cases,
misfortune in the shape of red tapism, Government machinery, ignorance and many
other factors cost the lives of citizens.
It is indeed unfortunate that the systems are yet to develop enough such that
appropriate medical assistance can be guaranteed to every citizen. It is also
pertinent to note the apathy and indifference of the officials, especially those present
during the hearing. Responding t


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 18/03/2025 seeking the following
information:
“I appeared for the interview for the post of Senior Resident in Department of
Community Medicine conducted by ESIC Medical College, Andheri, on
07/03/2025 at ESIC Sub Regional Office Andheri, Mumbai, but was not selected.
I am filing this RTI application to understand the basis of selection and the
document verification process. Kindly provide the following information under
the RTI Act, 2005: The criteria used for selection, including weightage given to

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Anil Kumar CPIO/Deputy Director and Vipin Kumar, Then 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 Appellant filed an RTI
application no. ESICO/R/E/25/00742 dated 18/03/2025 seeking few information
from the CPIO ESIC Model Hospital Cum ODC, Andheri. The CPIO provided a
point-wise response on 15.04.2025, whereby information sought at point no. 3 &
5 denied as per RTI Sec 8(1)(J) and information related to point no. 6 & 7 was
not available hence not provided. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/A/2025/625751                              Page 3 of 3

Appeal No. ESICO/A/E/25/0052 on 19.04.2025. The appellant mentioned in his
appeal that CPIO has not provided the Annexure I as mentioned in CPIO's reply.
He further apprises the benc

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. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion
that no further intervention is warranted in this case. The Appeal stands
disposed of.

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai


The appellant has filed RTI application dated 02/04/2025 seeking the following
information:
“I Rahul Gautam Chavan am filing this RTI application under the Right to
Information Act 2005 to request details related to the EPF account of Smt
Rajshree Maruti Landage daughter of Maruti and Savita Landage She has filed
legal cases against me claiming under oath that she is unemployed However I
have credible information that she is or was employed at CMR College of
Engineering and Technology CMRCET Hyderabad which may have registered

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: J.V. S.S Kumar CPIO/APFC 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 financial information of
any individual and especially that of EPF members is purely personal and cannot
be disclosed by the EPFO which is maintaining the data under trust and fiduciary
capacity. The personal financial information is protected by law and cannot be
accessed as a fishing expedition through RTI, reinforcing the privacy rights
applying to financial details/records RTI is not a forum to settle their personal
scores or matrimonial disputes.

Upon perusal of the case records and the submission made during hearing it is
observed that the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of this, Commission finds it
pivotal to highlight the Delhi high Court Judgement of Vijay Prakash Vs. UOI
AND ORS, in W.P.(C) 803/2009, relevant portion of the said judgment is as
under:

“23. As discussed earlier, the "public interest" argument of the Petitioner is
premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her,
and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute to establish the truth
of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no public interest element in the
disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information
provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an
application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify
how such

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


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 04/06/2025 seeking the
following information:
“I want to enquire about the status of my final PF settlement. I submitted my form
19 on fourth June 2025 (Ref attachment), after my transfer claim has been
approved on 3rd June 2025.
Was my claim approved? If yes, when was / will the PF amount credited to my
account? Give Date.

The following were present:-
Complainant: Present on VC
Respondent: Absent
The Complainant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the
information sought has not been provided by the CPIO. The Respondent is absent
despite due notice of hearing.

In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission
made during hearing, the commission notes that the complainant filed an RTI
Application dated 04.06.2025 seeking information regarding the status of his own
Final PF Settlement claim and CPIO has blatantly denied the information under
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is prima facie apparent that the above reply is blatantly
wrong, evasive, factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.

It is further noted that despite notice, the Respondent is absent and no written
submission has been filed on record by the Respondent. The conduct of the CPIO
demonstrates a clear violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and reflects

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/EPFOG/C/2025/635851                            Page 3 of 4

complete disregard towards the statutory obligations and the rights of the
information seeker.

It is hereby directed to the Respondent to show cause as to why a maximum
penal


The complainant has filed RTI application dated 14/02/2025 seeking the
following information:
“1. िवभाग के įरकॉडŊ के उन सभी Pages की सȑािपत छाया Ůित दे िजसमŐ Discharged From ICAR
िनलंिबत MTS ŵी दशŊन कुमार िक िपछले 5 सालों की Work Performance Report įरपोटŊ है ।

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Shimbu Dayal Undersecretary 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 submits that the RTI application dated
14.02.2025 sought information regarding documents of contractual manpower.
The CPIO vide reply dated 13.03.2025 informed the appellant that the
Contractual manpower is hired through third party vendor therefore, their
documents are not maintained at ICAR Hqrs. The Public Information Officer had
timely responded to the letter dated 14.02.2025, but the letter was returned by
express post with the remark "No one was found at the given address”.

The Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of
proceedings during hearing observes that the Respondent had timely responded
to the letter dated 14.02.2025, but the letter was returned by express post with the
remark "No one was found at the given address”. The commission is of the view

Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ICARH/C/2025/112148                            Page 3 of 4

that the said return of the reply, does not, establish any malafide intention on the
part of the CPIO. The reply was duly prepared and dispatched in good faith within
the framework of the RTI Act, 2005, and the non-delivery stems purely from an
inadvertent error in the address, rather than any deliberate attempt to deny, delay
or obstruct the flow of information.

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

Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi