1.
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2025 seeking the
following information:

“1. लेखा िनदेशक के सीबीसी फड़ के तहत एक मु᭫त िनपटान और ऋण माफᳱ योजना के
स᭥बंध मᱶ ᳰदए नोट के आधार पर आयोग कᳱ मीᳳटंग सं᭎या 599 ᳰदनांक 29.03.12 एजेड़ा नं.
14.1 मᱶ िलए िनणᭅय एवं लेखा िनदेशक के नोट कᳱ ᮧमािणत ᮧित उपल᭣ध करवायी जावे।

Page 2 of 4

2. आयोग के िनणᭅय मीᳳटंग सं᭎या 592nd ᳰदनांक 29.04.2011 के अनुसार इंिडयन
इ᭠सᳯटट᭦युट ऑफ बᱹᳰकग ए᭛ड फाइने᭠स (IIBF) ᳰदनांक 21.05.2011 ᳇ारा गᳯठत कमेटी कᳱ
ᳯरपᲃट एवं (IIBF) कᳱ ᳯरपोटᭅ कᳱ ᮧमािणत ᮧित उपल᭣ध करवायी जावे।
3. खादी ᮕामोधोग आयोग कᳱ मीᳳटंग नं. 599th ᳰदनांक 29.03.2012 कᱶ िनणᭅयानुसार मु᭎य
कायᭅकारी अिधकारी ᳇ारा सिचव एवं माननीय अ᭟यᭃ आयोग ᳇ारा माननीय मंᮢी
(एम.ए.स.एम.ई) को िलखे पᮢ कᳱ ᮧमािणत ᮧित उपल᭣ध करवायी जावे।
4. मु᭎य कायᭅकारी महोदय एवं माननीय अ᭟यᭃ आ

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Pranita Rahul Tamahane, Director/ CPIO present through
video conference.
5.
The Appellant did not turn up for hearing in the NIC studio, therefore,
efforts were made to connect the Appellant on audio-call, however, there was
no response from the Appellant’s side. Instead of prolonging the matter
further, the Commission finds it viable to decide this Appeal on merits based
on strength of materials placed on record.
6.
Written statement of the CPIO dated 17.04.2026 is taken on record.

Page 3 of 4

7.
CPIO while defending this Appeal stated that a reply has been provided
to the Appellant earlier and also now with the written statement. CPIO stated
that Appellant is neither the employee of Respondent organization nor the
intended beneficiary of loan wavier scheme for which he has sought
information, therefore, internal correspondence and other related Committee
reports as sought by the Appellant

8.
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the
case, hearing the CPIO and perusal of the records observed that as far as RTI
application in question is concerned, it is found that suitable reply in terms of
the RTI Act, 2005 was provided to the Appellant earlier vide letter dated
27.01.2025 and now vide written submission dated 17.04.2026. The
Respondent/CPIO has stated that a copy of written submission has already
been provided to the Appellant, therefore, the Appellant did not appear before
the Commission during hearing to contest his case and no written submission
to controvert the version has been filed.
9.
Further, the Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO in
denying the information such as noting sheet, internal correspondence,
Committee report and other related information pertaining to the loan waiver
scheme for intended beneficiary under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it
involves personal information of third part

Section 8(1)
Section 8
Section 44
section 25(5) of the RTI Act


1.
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.01.2025
seeking the following information:

“सूचना अͬधकार अͬधǓनयम 2005 के अÛतग[त कुमाऊं मंडल (उƣराखंड) के सभी िजलɉ
के ͧलए 01 अĤैल 2018 से 31 Ǒदसंबर 2024 तक ͪवͧभÛन योजनाओं. काय[Đमɉ. बजट
और खचा[ से संबंͬधत ͪवèतृत Ǔनàन सूचना Ĥदान करने हेतु ।

1. सभी योजनाओं, काय[Đमɉ और पǐरयोजनाओं का ͪवèतृत ͪववरणः

01 अĤैल 2018 से 31 Ǒदसंबर 2024 तक सूêम, लघु और मÚयम उɮयम मंğालय दवारा
संथाͧलत सभी योजनाओं, पǐरयोजनाओं, काय[शालाओं, Ĥͧश¢ण काय[Đमɉ और मेलɉ
का ͪववरण Ĥदान करे.

-Ĥ×येक योजना/काय[Đम/पǐरयोजना/मेला का नाभ।
-योजना/काय[Đम का उ ɮदेæय और लाभाथȸ समूह।
-योजना शुǾ करने कȧ Ǔतͬथ और समािÜत कȧ Ǔतͬथ।
-योजना/काय[Đम के ͧलए èवीकृत और åयय कȧ गई धनराͧश।

बजट ͪवतरण का ͪवèतृत ͪववरणः
-Ĥ×येक योजना काय[Đम के अंतग[त बजट का ͪवतरण ͩकस Ǔतͬथ को हुआ।

The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Vinay Kumar Joshi, Asst. Director/CPIO present through
video conference.
5.
Appellant/Complainant did not turn up for hearing despite service.
Therefore, efforts were made with the assistance of Registry to connect the
Appellant/ Complainant through audio conference, however, there was no
response. The Commission instead of prolonging the matters further deems it
fit to decide the instant Appeal and Complaint on merits based on material
placed on record.
6.
The CPIO initially invited attention of the Bench towards the initial reply
and stated that the original reply has been provided by the then CPIO and he
assumed the charge on 12.09.2025. CPIO sought time to file his written
statement in these matters, which was allowed by the Bench.
7.
Post hearing, the CPIO filed a written statement incorporating additional
information as under –
“RTI CORELATED INFORMATION SOUGHTED

As per order'

8.
Heard the Respondent.
9.
Upon perusal of the facts of the Second Appeal and Complaint, and
hearing the CPIO, the Commission observes that core contention raised by the
Appellant/Complainant in the instant Appeal and Complaint was denial of his
request for generic information related to schemes launched by MSME for the
Kumaun Division, Uttarakhand under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8 (1)(j) of the
RTI Act, 2005. On the other hand, the CPIO stated that initial reply has been
provided by the then CPIO and he assumed the charge of designated CPIO
afterwards and the CPIO filed a revised reply by giving the name of schemes in
the form of revised reply which is taken on record and contents of the same
are reproduce in para 7 above.

Page 6 of 7

10.
The Commission notes that complete denial of information by classifying
it to be “Para 8(d) और 8(j) के अंतग[त देय नहȣं है” is found to be not in order in the
absence of any justification for such denial of information as s

Section 8(1)(d)
Section 8
Section 10 of the RTI Act
Section 20 of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act

M/o. MSME, DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITATION OFFICE,


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

“The information is related with the Directorate of Adm. & H.R./ Audit &
Accounts of KVIC.
1. Number of Regular Cadre employees and their details who are
working/have worked in trading establishments since 2001 till date.

Page 2 of 6

Please inform from which fund their salary and allowances are paid/met
i.e. non-plan fund or trading margin.
2. Number of Trading Cadre employees and their details who are
working/have worked in Regular cadre since 2001 till date. please inform
from which fund their salary and allowances are paid/met i.e. non-plan
fund or trading margin.
3. Provide the list and appointment letter of Asst. Accountants appointed
under Regular establishments & Trad

The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri V Satyanarayana Murthy present through video conference.
Respondent: Ms. Pranita Rahul Tamahane, Director/CPIO present through
video conference.
5.
Written statement of the CPIO dated 27.04.2026 is taken on record.
6.
Appellant narrated the genesis of instant Appeal being the non-
upgradation of his pay during service, prior to superannuation, in parity with
the Auditor – I and Assistant Accountant, in compliance of Hon’ble High Court’s
and in turn depriving the Appellant of the notional benefits in this regard. Such
circumstances led him to filing the court case before the Hon’ble CAT,
Ernakulum bench bearing OA No. 321/2023, which is sub-judice as on date.
During pendency of his court case, the Appellant filed the RTI application in
question seeking the requisite information, however, he is aggrieved by the
fact that complete relevant information has not been provided to him so far.
Appellant further restricted his claim for

8.
Heard the parties.
9.
Having considered the submissions of both the parties and on looking
into the materials of the instant Appeal on record, the Commission observed
that though the Appellant has sought collation and compilation of data which
pertains to voluminous nature of information sought, however, as per the
version of the Appellant that emerged during hearing, the issue pertaining to
subject matter of information sought regarding non-upgradation of his pay by
competent authority of KVIC is sub-judice before the Hon’ble CAT, Ernakulum
Bench in O.A. No. 321/2023, it is better recourse for the Appellant to wait for
the final verdict of the Court.
10.
Nonetheless, the initial reply and revised reply furnished by the CPIO
vide written statement dated 27.04.2026 in each point of RTI application in
question majorly covers the aspect of information sought through instant RTI
applications in terms of the RTI Act, 2005. The revised reply of the CPIO is
found to be in

Section 2(f)
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
Section 8(1)(j)
Section 2
Section 10 of the RTI Act
section 25(5) of the RTI Act