Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4121

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Shweta Bhardwaj Dixit – Appellant
Versus
PIO – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120315

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satpal Bhardwaj, P K Vats, Ghanshyam Dass Gupta
For the Respondents: Satish Kumar Gupta, Vipin Chopra, Sandeep Kumar

The Information Commission cannot adjudicate disputes under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act or hold authorities accountable for procedural delays therein, as its jurisdiction under the RTI Act is limited to ensuring access to existing records rather than monitoring ongoing administrative actions or providing progressive updates.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 20(1) and 20(2) - Non-compliance petition - Penal action - The Information Commission cannot hold public authorities accountable for acts/omissions under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, as it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters or issue a writ of mandamus.

(B) RTI Act, 2005 - Section 5(4) - Duty of PIO - The obligation of a Public Information Officer is to provide information held on record; it does not extend to providing continuous updates, clarifications, or interpreting the progress of proceedings under parallel special statutes like the DCS Act.

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking an action taken report regarding a letter submitted to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Dissatisfied with the initial response and subsequent non-compliance, the appellant approached the Commission. Following a High Court direction to expedite proceedings, the matter was heard regarding the non-compliance petition and the appellant's request for penal action against the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the requested information had been provided to the appellant previously. Furthermore, the appellant suppressed the fact of receiving an initial reply, failing to approach the Commission with clean hands. The Commission reiterated that it is not an adjudicatory body for the DCS Act and cannot impose penalties when the PIO has responded in accordance with the law.

Issues: Whether the Commission can penalize a PIO for non-compliance under the RTI Act when the primary grievance relates to the inaction of a cooperative society governed by the DCS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Information Commission is not empowered to act as a tribunal for matters governed by the DCS Act. Once an initial reply furnishing available information is provided, no further progressive updates are mandated under the RTI Act. Penal action is not warranted in the absence of mala fide intent, especially when the information seeker has suppressed relevant facts. Result : Non-compliance petition disposed of; show-cause proceedings dropped.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Date of First Hearing:	23.10.2023
Date of Impugned Order:	27.10.2023
Date of non-compliance hearing: (in compliance with directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on dated 30.05.2025 in W.P.(C) 8047/2025)	21.07.2025
Final Decision and Final Disposal from CIC:	08.10.2025

The instant matter is being pursued by the Commission in compliance of the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 8047/2025 in the case titled “Anil Chander Bagga & Ors. vs. Central Information Commission & Ors. Dated 30.05.2025. The operating portion of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi’s order is reproduced below:

“6. Considering the limited nature of relief sought, the petition is disposed of with a request to the CIC to take an expeditious decision on the pending applications filed by the petitioners, under Section 20 of RTI Act, 2005. Let an endeavor be made to conclude the said proceedings within a period of two months from today.

7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

8. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in the event of being aggrieved by the outcome of pending proceedings before the CIC.”

In the records of this Registry till the date of passing of the above order by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, following 27 non-compliance/compliance cases of the petitioners are pending. Despite applicants (Appellant herein) in each case under the RTI Act being different (4 in numbers) but the Respondent Public Authority is the same, all these cases are listed and heard together because they filed common single Writ Petition bearing No. W.P.(C) 8047/2025 to Hon’ble High Court Delhi as one group and because the Respondents are the same.

List of 27 cases (Second Appeals):

(1) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120312

(2) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120313

(3) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126125

(4) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120315

(5) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126123

(6) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126124

(7) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125334

(8) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125332

(9) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126119

(10) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126120

(11) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126121

(12) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126122

(13) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126117

(14) CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/126118

(15) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120317

(16) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120318

(17) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125340

(18) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125339

(19) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125338

(20) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125337

(21) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125336

(22) CIC/REGCS/A/2023/125335

(23) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/128200

(24) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/128201

(25) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/132112

(26) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/132113

(27) CIC/RECOS/A/2023/132114

In compliance with the above-mentioned directions, the instant Non-Compliance petition is listed for hearing and disposal today. However, order in each case is passed separately as queries are differently framed in each RTI applications.

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 13.02.2023

CPIO replied on : 16.03.2023

First appeal filed on : 15.03.2023

First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08.05.2023

Information sought:

I. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2023 seeking the following information:

“Action taken report by the RCS in correspondence of letter submitted by letter no.F.47/AR/Section-III/498-GH/2051 dated 17.03.2016 (Copy enclosed).”

II. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.03.2023 stating as under:

“Your complaint letter dated 19/02/2016 and 01/03/2016 has been sent to the President/Secretary of Jyoti CGHS Ltd. vide this office letter No. F.47/AR/Section-III/498-GH/2016 dated 17/03/2016 with the directions to furnish their comments within a week after receiving of letter. After that the final reminder has been sent to the President/Secretary of the Jyoti CGHS Ltd., vide this office letter dated 08/04/2016. A copy of the same was also endorsed to you. The society has given their reply on 19th April 2016 (Copy enclosed).

Letter dtd. 19.04.2016

Sir,

This is with reference to the above said letter, received by us. The context in which the let

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4121

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, Information CommissionerShweta Bhardwaj Dixit – AppellantVersusPIO – RespondentSecond Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120315

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Shweta Bhardwaj Dixit – Appellant
Versus
PIO – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2023/120315