Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 365
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, J
Ajit Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
DEDICATED FREIGHT CORRIDOR CORP OF INDIA LIMITED – Respondent
CIC/DFCCI/A/2022/628132
The PIO is obligated to provide information available in records under the RTI Act, not to create information as per the appellant's desires.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8 - Non-compliance of CIC order - The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information to the appellant after verifying the identity of the applicant. The appellant alleged non-compliance, but the CPIO demonstrated compliance with the CIC's order. The appellant's aggressive conduct during hearings was noted. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Conduct of parties - The Commission admonished the appellant for using foul language and being disruptive during hearings, emphasizing the need for decorum in administrative proceedings. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant reported non-compliance of a CIC order regarding information sought under the RTI Act. The CPIO provided information as per the CIC's directives, but the appellant alleged inaccuracies and misconduct by the CPIO.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the CPIO had complied with the CIC's order and that the appellant's allegations were unfounded.
Issues: The main issues were whether the CPIO complied with the CIC's order and the conduct of the appellant during the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the PIO is only required to provide information available in records and is not obligated to create information. The appellant's conduct was deemed unacceptable.
Result: Non-compliance petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint for non-compliance (Para 1) |
| 2. cic's observations and directions (Para 2) |
| 3. appellant's allegations of non-compliance (Para 3) |
| 4. cpio's response to allegations (Para 4) |
| 5. hearing and submissions (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 6. decision of the commission (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER
1. The issue under consideration is the complaint for non-compliance dated 02.06.2023 of CIC’s order dated 27.02.2023 in the above matter.
2. The above-mentioned appeal of the appellant, Shri Ajit Singh Yadav was disposed of by the Commission on 27.02.2023 wherein following observations and directions are given:
“Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to seek an affidavit from Mr Ram Krishan Jha, declaring that he had sought the information with the name of Mr.Ajit Singh Yadav as the Appellant in the present RTI Application, within 1 week of the receipt of this order and further wait for 15 days for the Appellant to reply. If the Appellant furnish the Affidavit then the respondent can share the point wise, precise and suitable reply with the Appellant protecting the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of his response under the intimation to the Commission. If he does not give the Affidavit in the time frame given then there is no further intervention of the Commission required. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.”
3. The Appellant vide his letter dated 02.06.2023 reported non-compliance of the above order stating that
“It is requested that kindly look into the reply of ---- authority (copy enclosed annexure-1) and see how try to contempt the referred decision by making the issue around while, I have duly complied the referred decision requirement as it is (annexure-2).
Given the above it is requested that kindly issue a non-compliance order immediately for which I will be obliged to you.”
4. The CPIO, vide letter dated 28.11.2023 had provided the following reply:
“Shri Jha was provided with information by this office in compliance of Hon'ble CIC's order dtd.27.2.2023 & 27.10.2023 on mail dated 20.11.2023(copy enclosed). The appellant Shri Jha has however, expressed his disappointments/allegations rather in a very raw way using foul languages unacceptable under normal administrative parlance in regard to the information provided to him by this office. He has alleged that "the reply provided is riddled with factual inaccuracies and entirely misleading. The respondent authority does not want to disclose the information deliberately like vicious scoundrel".
The undersigned finds the communications (copies enclosed) received from Shri Jha are lacking substance, made without application of mind and lacking required knowledge on the Act and relevant exemption clauses in the RTI Act, 2005 under which he seeks for information. It also shows how he lacks basic knowledge on protocol of communication as he uses phrases which are blameworthy, unproductive and unsavory. In the following paragraphs the undersigned has given the chronology of actions of both the sides in the process of seeking information from and providing information to for a better appreciation of the Hon'ble CIC:
1. He made an RTI application in the year 2022 (11.03.2022) in the name of Shri Ajit Kumar Yadav and asked for information in 48 hours under Life and Liberty as indicated in the table above. This time he asked for the marks awarded to all candidates in the DPC held for inter-cluster promotion from E4to E5 and copies of all APARs of each candidate. As per RTI Act, 2005 ali shareable information was provided to Shri Yadav except for copy of APARS and marks awarded to candidates other than the applicant as the same are exempted u/s 8(e) and (g). Also, his request for providing information under Life and Liberty being non-substantive was rejected by the PIO.
2. In the same time, he had sought for information in his name in the same year 2022(
