Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2658
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Ashwani Kumar – Appellant
Versus
PIO, DDA – Respondent
CIC/DDATY/A/2024/606615
For the Appellant: Not mentioned
For the Respondent: Not mentioned
Public authorities are mandated to provide specific information as required by RTI applications; vague responses violate transparency obligations under the RTI Act.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Violation of RTI provisions and public interest - CPIO failed to provide adequate information, leading to a second appeal; Appellant contends that the response was vague and documents were withheld improperly; Commission noted the casual conduct of the CPIO and imposed a penalty under Section 20. (Paras 9-11, 14-15)
(B) Transparency and accountability - The failure to provide specific documentation on ground of unavailability without justification is a breach of RTI Act; public interest matters concerning land acquisition were highlighted, necessitating clear disclosure. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI request regarding land acquisition details and received a vague response, necessitating a first appeal and subsequently a second appeal due to dissatisfaction with the inadequate information provided.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found violations of the RTI Act provisions by the then CPIO leading to unnecessary delays and obstruction in accessing public information; penalties imposed accordingly.
Issues: The main issues included inadequate responses to RTI requests by the CPIO and the failure of the FAA to provide a reasoned decision; the conduct of public officers in response to requests was scrutinized.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission established the CPIO's responsibility to adequately address RTI requests and emphasized the need for complete responses, rejecting claims of non-availability without proof of efforts made to locate documents.
Result: Penalty imposed on CPIO and directions issued for compliance with RTI provisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. matters relating to rti application submission and responses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. issues concerning the adequacy of cpio responses to rti requests. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. administrative review and penalties applied for rti act violations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. emphasis on compliance and accountability for public officers under rti. (Para 13) |
| 5. final directives by the commission regarding future compliance. (Para 14 , 16) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 17.11.2023 seeking the following information:
(1) 14/01/1993 Ashok S/O Sube Singh Amberhai F-31(45)/04/93/L&B/Alt 13/91-92
(2) 10/05/1993 Ramrati D/O Sh. Lakhi Ram Amberhai F-31(45)/09/92-94/L&B/Alt 13/91-92
(3) 14/01/1993 Satish S/o Sube Singh Amberhai F-31(45)/3/93/L&B/Alt 13/91-92”
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.02.2024 stating as under:
“1. Development work was carried out by DDA from the funds allocated to DDA by AAI
2. Amount paid by AAI was only for developing site.
3. There is no such record available in this office.
4. Survey list not available in this office.
5. Attached
6. No such information is available. 7. No such information is available. 8. Third party rejection u/s 8(1)(j).”
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2023.
The FAA vide its order dated 26.02.2024, held as under.
“Your RTI reply has already given by CPIO.”
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 03.07.2025 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Chirag Gupta, AD/CPIO along with Shri Sachin, JSA, DDA, New Delhi present in person.
6. Written submission of the Respondent is taken on record. The Appellant during hearing reiterated the contents of his written submission wherein he inter alia pleaded as under:
“…..CPIO’s Response:
Response Date:23/02/2024 To: Details of Response:
The CPIO provided a partial and vague response, stating:
▪ Point 1: Development works were carried out using funds allocated to DDA, but no specific details or documents were provided.
▪ Point 2: Funds provided by AAI were only for site development, but it was not clarified whether land costs were included.
▪ Points 3, 4, 6, and 7: Claimed that records for land allocation, survey details, plot files, and missing files were unavailable.
▪ Point 5: An attachment was provided, but no specific details were given.
▪ Point 8: Information on Amberhai land acquisition was denied under Section 8 (1)(j) as third-party information, without consulting the third party under Section 11 or providing proper justification.
o The response lacked the requested documents, such as photocopies of records, survey reports, or file details, and was devoid of clarity and specificity.
3. Details of First Appeal: o Appeal Registration Numbered/A/E/23/01017 o Date of Filing:26/12/2023 o Grounds of Appeal: Non-provision of response by the CPIO within the stipulated time limit.
o FAA’s Order:
▪ Order Date:26/02/2024
▪ Remarks: The FAA summarily disposed of the appeal, stating,
“Your RTI response has already been provided by the CPIO,” without addressing the inadequacy of the CPIO’s response or the non-provision of requested documents. The FAA neither passed a reasoned order nor directed the CPIO to provide complete information.
4. Grounds for Second Appeal: o Non-compliance with RTI Act:
The CPIO failed to respond within the mandatory 30-day period, necessitating the first appeal. The response provided on 23/02/2024 was incomplete, vague, and lacked the requested documents.
o Inadequate and Vague Response: For points 1-4, 6, and 7, the CPIO claimed records were unavailable without proving efforts to locate them or explaining their unavailability, violating the RTI Act’s transparency obligations. o Improper Use of Section 8
