SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3191

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Shri Heeralal Samariya, CJ
Shri. Mridul Jindal – Appellant
Versus
PIO, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/NCDRC/A/2024/637100 | Complaint No. CIC/NCDRC/C/2024/627791



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: M. Durga Devi, Sunil Datt Sharma, Sh. Raju

Public authorities are not obligated to create information that is not available and must only provide information existing within their records.

Headnote:The judgment involves an RTI appeal concerning the non-compliance of orders against an official. The court reaffirmed the principle that a public authority isn't obliged to create information not available to it. The primary ruling concluded that the appellant was appropriately responded to concerning the available records and that no malice was found against the respondent. The Commission disposed of the second appeal.

Date of Hearing : 01.08.2025 Date of Decision : 01.08.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 27.03.2024 PIO replied on : 18.05.2024 First Appeal filed on : 25.06.2024 First Appellate Order on : 24.07.2024

2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 23.08.2024/27.06.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“1. What order is passed against Sh. Sanjay Kumar for non-compliance of SCDRC order, abuse of power, passing illegal order, misbehavior with litigants and sitting late in court? Please provide copy of the order passed if any.

2. If no order is passed against Sh. Sanjay Kumar till date, please provide information why no action is taken till date against him?

3. How many complaints were filed against him since the day he become President, DCDRC? Please provide month wise information in a tabular format along with copy of all complaints.

4. Please provide information that how many complaints have been decided and how many are pending. Please provide month wise information in a table format along with copy of order as well.

5. On which date Sh. Sanjay Kumar become President, DCDRC?”

The CPIO, Registrar, Delhi State Commission vide letter dated 18.05.2024 replied as under:-

“1. As per available record, the matter is under process and as soon as any decision will be taken by the Higher Authorities, the same shall be conveyed.

2. As per available record, the matter is under process and as soon as any decision will be taken by the Higher Authorities, the same shall be conveyed.

3. As per available record, it is informed that complaints received against any District Commission are being dealt in separate files and no record is being maintained in Register form. Therefore, the information sought is not available in the form of document which can be made available.

4. As per available record, it is informed that complaints received against any District Commission are being dealt in separate files and no record is being maintained in Register form. Therefore, the Information sought is not available in the form of document which can be made available.

5. As per available record, Sh. Sanjay Kumar became President, DCDRC on

09.01.2023.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.06.2024. The FAA, Member (G) vide order dated 24.07.2024 replied as under:-

“In view of the above mentioned judgment of Hon’ble High Court, PIO/Registrar, Delhi State Commission is directed to provide information of point No. 3 & 4 of the RTI Application dated 27.03.2024 within 15 days. PIO/Registrar, Delhi State Commission is further directed to inform (provide information) the appellant about the order / status of point / question no. 1 & 2 of the RTI Application within 15 days”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/complaint Further a written submission has been filed by the respondent dated, 11.07.2025, “RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

That the Registry of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has received hearing Notice No.CIC/NCDRC/A/2024/637100 dated 27/06/2025 in the matter of Mr. Mridul Jindal Vs. CPIO, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, with the directions that the hearing in the matter shall be conducted before the Hon’ble Central Information Commission, on 18/07/2025 at 01:10 P.M. Further, the copy of the notice sent to the concerned PIO/Registrar, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, through mail dated 17/07/2025, with request to appear before the Hon’ble Central Information Commission for hearing, as per the hearing notice, copy of the same attached herewith as Annexure-"A".”

Etc..

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant/Complainant: Present Respondent: Present, M. Durga Devi, Assistant Registrar/Nodal Officer, Sunil Datt Shar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top