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) 4100

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Anil Chander Bagga – Appellant
Versus
PIO – Respondent
Second Appeal No.: CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125339



PIO cannot act as post-office; must ensure RTI compliance with timely information provision and reasoned responses.

Headnote:The RTI Act, 2005, particularly S.20, mandates PIOs to provide information timely and comply with Commission directions, overriding general denials. Appellant sought inspection report and action taken on cooperative society accounts. Court found PIO's repeated non-compliance and post-office functioning violated RTI provisions. Issues framed: whether PIO violated RTI by delaying response and ignoring prior orders; ratio: PIO must apply mind, not act as conduit, with DCS Act providing parallel remedies but not excusing RTI duties. Penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed on PIO; compensation claim rejected.

Information sought:

I. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2023 seeking the following information:

“Sh. P.C. Jain, Joint Secretary (GAD), Govt of Delhi, Sachivalya, I.P. Estate, New Delhi was appointed for inspection of accounts of the vide their letter society dated no.47(498)/GH/G11/NW/4046 26/08/2007. Please provide the inspection report submitted by Sh. P.C. Jain with Assistant Registrar, RCS and the action taken by RCS on his report.

II. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.02.2023 stating as under:

“The requisite information sought by the RTI applicant is presently not available in the office record of this section.”

III. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

IV. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

V. The Commission disposed of the Second Appeal on 23.10.2023 and passed the following observations and directions:

“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) order has not been complied with by the PIO thus violating the provisions of the RTI Act. It also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information is with mala fide intent. Therefore, the Commission directs the PIO to comply with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) order and provide the information to the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

Moreover, the Commission notes that the PIO failed to comply with the First Appellate Authority’s order as mandated by the RTI Act. Consequently, the Commission hereby, directs the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken against him for the not responding to the RTI application of the Complainant and why a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- only (Ten thousand only) should not be imposed on him as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.”

VI. The Appellant vide letter dated 13.12.2023 followed by multiple reminder letters filed an application reporting non-compliance of the above order against the respondent department before the Commission praying the Commission to impose the penalty on PIO as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. He further prayed for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for alleged undue harassment.

VII. The Registry of this Bench vide letter dated 03.04.2024 had sought comments from the PIO on the non-compliance complaint filed by the Appellant.

VIII. The Respondent vide letter dated 16.05.2024 filed compliance of the above direction with the following information:

“Subject:-Compliance report in respect of order dated 23.10.2023 of Hon'ble CIC in appeal no. File CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120317-UM.

Sir,

Please refer to your letter No. File CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120317-UM dated 03.04.2024 on the subject cited above.

In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that in compliance of CIC order dated 27.10.2023, the requisite information/documents were sought from Jyoti CGHS Ltd. vide this office letter dated 13.11.2023 (Annexure-A). The society has provided a reply dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure-B) and the same has been forwarded to the appellant vide this office letter dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure-C). Hence, this office has complied the order dated 23.10.2023 of Hon'ble CIC.

Annexure -B

1 & 2.The information sought by the applicant not available in the office of MC of Jyoti CGHS.”

IX. Subsequently, the Appellant has filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 8047/2025 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for early disposal of his non-compliance complaint which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 30.05.2025 with the direction to the CIC to dispose of the non-compliance complaints within 2 months f

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