Public authorities must progressively disclose information to the public; RTI Act does not require hardcopies if information is already accessible online.

ORDER

Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/125172

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.08.2024.

Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/125167

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:

2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.08.2024.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

3. The appellant’s representative and on behalf of the respondents A. Karthikeyan, CPIO, CVC; and Asst. Director of Vigilance Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, attended the hearing in-person.

4. The appellant’s representative inter alia submitted that the specific information regarding action taken on the appellant’s complaints were not provided by the CPIO on both the second appeals, so far. Further, he insisted on hardcopies of the rules for disposal of complaints sought in point nos 1 and 2 of the RTI application, in CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/125167.

5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had duly informed the appellant that disposal related details could be directly accessed from the portal and the weblink to access the same was also shared with her on both the appeals. In CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/125172, the CPIO, MCD, endorsed the following written submissions dated 20.01.2026 are reproduced as under:

“That in the instant matter, the department received a RTI application dated 17.02.2024 from Ms. Bhoomi Chattar Singh Rachhoya. It was registered under RTI ID No. 1029 dated 19.02.2024. The applicant through the RTI application had sought certain information with regard to a complaint (CVC Ref. No. 36311) forwarded by CVC. (Annx.- A).

The said complaint/matter appeared to be pertaining to GNCTD as such, vide this office's Letter No. PIO(Vig.)/RTI ID No. 1029/MCD/2024/715 dated 18.03.2024, the applicant was informed about the same and also transferred the RTI application, to CPIO/DOV/GNCTD with the request to provide the information directly to the applicant under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005. (Annx. - B)

That the applicant filed first appeal before the 1st Appellate authority on 15.05.2024 and matter was disposed off vide FAA's order No. FAA/MCD/Vig./Appeal No. 170/2024/1431 dated 12.06.2024, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below: (Annx.- C)

"....... After going through the query of the appellant and the reply provided by the PIO, I am of the considered view that reply provided by the PIO is as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005. As such, the application is 'disposed' off.

Now, the matter is listed before your good self for hearing on 16.02.2026 at 11:15 Α.Μ. Since, the PIO / Vigilance Department, MCD had replied/provided available information to the applicant, the aforesaid submission may kindly be considered before passing orders please.”

Furthermore, the CPIO, CVC, stated that the information being av