Clock Runs Out: Central Information Commission Dismisses Time-Barred RTI Appeal Against NTPC

In a recent decision that underscores the importance of procedural discipline under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a second appeal filed by Hemant Mishra against the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). The Commission ruled that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory timeframe and lacked the necessary legal grounds for a condonation of delay.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The conflict originated from an online RTI application filed by the appellant on November 30, 2024, seeking extensive details regarding alleged "illegal encroachments" and infrastructure facilities (such as water, electricity, and roads) provided within the NTPC Singrauli project premises.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of NTPC responded in January 2025, stating that the information sought was ambiguous and, consequently, could not be provided. Following an unsuccessful first appeal disposed of by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on January 24, 2025, the appellant approached the Commission for a second appeal.

Contending Perspectives

In his written submissions to the Commission, the appellant contended that his request aimed to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities. He attributed the delay in filing his second appeal to personal health struggles, specifically citing diabetes and vision-related complications. He urged the Commission to consider his case in the interest of justice.

Conversely, the respondent, represented by CPIO Sh. Vikash Kumar, argued that the appeal was entirely time-barred and fundamentally meritless. The respondent further highlighted a potentially troubling pattern, noting that the appellant had filed over 100 RTI applications and 92 second appeals, suggesting a strategy of "grievance redressal" rather than genuine information-seeking—a practice the respondent argued militates against the legislative intent of the RTI Act.

Legal Analysis: The Procedural Hardline

The Commission’s decision focused squarely on the procedural threshold for appeals. While the RTI Act is designed to provide information to citizens, it is not an absolute or unconditional right; it operates within specific legal parameters, including strict limitation periods.

The Commission observed that the appellant provided no formal application for the "Condonation of Delay"—a necessary legal step for any petitioner filing past the deadline to explain the circumstances of their lateness. In a bench chaired by Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha, the Commission determined that it could not entertain an appeal that failed to satisfy the fundamental procedural requirements of the Act.

Key Observations

The Commission’s ruling emphasizes the necessity of adhering to established legal timelines, as evidenced by these findings:

• "The Commission observes that the instant Second Appeal has been filed beyond the stipulated time-frame as per the provisions of RTI Act."
• "Further no Application for Condonation of Delay has been placed by the Appellant on the record."
• "Hence, the Commission dismisses the instant appeal as a time-barred Second Appeal."

Final Decision and Implications

The Central Information Commission ultimately dismissed the appeal, effectively closing the matter due to procedural non-compliance. This judgment reinforces a critical message for RTI users: while the Act is a powerful tool for transparency, it is bounded by statutory limitations. Failure to file appeals in a timely manner—or to formally and adequately seek a condonation for inevitable delays—will result in the summary dismissal of the plea. For organizations like NTPC, the decision provides a degree of protection against repetitive or procedurally flawed litigation.