Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2936
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
K Somanandan – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: All India Council for Technical Education – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2024/123395
For the Appellant:
For the Respondents: M G Vamsi Krishna
RTI Act mandates the disclosure of maintained records and documents without requiring third-party consent when the information is pertinent to the request.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(e) and 11(1) - Appeal concerning the refusal to provide information regarding extension of approval documents for an educational institution - The FAA determined the information sought was third-party information and required consent for disclosure; CPIO provided irrelevant responses; Commission ruled the CPIO should maintain proper records and share relevant affidavits without requiring college concurrence. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
(B) Obligations of CPIO - The CPIO was found to have provided incorrect and irrelevant information to the appellant, failing to understand the inquiry made; the Commission emphasized adherence to the RTI provisions regarding third-party information. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought access to documents submitted by Sarabhai Institute of Science and Technology for approval extensions, and after several responses indicating the information was exempt and irrelevant, a second appeal was filed.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the CPIO wrong in not providing relevant affidavits and documents maintained by the respondent and advised diligence in addressing RTI requests.
Issues: The main questions involved whether the information sought was appropriately characterized as third-party information subject to consent and if the CPIO fulfilled the duty to provide relevant information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the CPIO misconstrued the nature of the inquiry and was obligated to provide the maintained affidavits, regardless of third-party consent since it was directly relevant to the appellant's request.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant sought documents from aicte regarding college approvals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. cpio's response was deemed incomplete; information characterized as third-party. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. commission found cpio's obligations overlooked; relevant information must be shared. (Para 7) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
This application is to get information regarding the Self Financing Engineering College, Sarabhai Institute of Science and Technology, Vellanad P.O, Thiruvananthapuram 695 543, Kerala State affiliated to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Kerala State.
1. Certified copy of single application along with all supporting documents for Extension of Approval to the existing institution submitted by the above Sarabhai Institute of Science and Technology before All India Council for Technical Education, in connection with grant of approval, for the year 2022-23 mentioned in the All India Council for Technical Education, Approval Hand Book. The documents shall be included Affidavits filed by the college.
2. Certified copy of single application along with all supporting documents for Extension of Approval to the existing institution submitted by the above Sarabhai Institute of Science and Technology before All India Council for Technical Education, in connection with grant of approval, for the year 2023-24 mentioned in the All India Council for Technical Education, Approval Hand Book. The documents shall be included Affidavits filed by the college.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“The information has attached.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.05.2024 stated as under:-
“I as Appellate Authority perused the matter and found out that the applicant has sought information related to the application and the supporting documents submitted to AICTE for the Extension of Approval for the year 2022-23 & 2023-24 by the institute Sarabhai Institute of Science and Technology. Further, it is to inform to the applicant that the information requested is third party information, which comes under section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the PIO SWRO, AICTE has been requested to share the notice to third party under section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the institutions mentioned above for the consent to disclose the information. Further, as the reply/information form the institution is received to the PIO SWRO, Regulation Bureau, AICTE the same will be shared to you.”
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.07.2024.
5. The appellant expired on 09.01.2025 as per the WS of the Respondent dated 14.07.2025 and on behalf of the respondent MR. M G Vamsi Krishna, DD/PIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the said information sought by the appellant cannot be provided as the same exempted U/s 8(1)(e) RTI Act and upon seeking concurrence of the said college in contention to share the information, the college vide letter dated 03.07.2025 had denied for concurrence and sharing the information.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, observes that the information sought by the appellant pertains to Application, Affidavits submitted by the college in contention for the years 2022-2023 & 2023-2024 and as observed in similar case in File No. CIC/AICTE/A/2024/653562, the CPIO ought to have provided the Affidavits submitted by the college i.e., Self-Disclosure Reports to the appellant for the aforesaid years as the same are collected and maintained by the Respondent. A
