के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/NTRCH/C/2024/637779 Dinesh Singh Malik ….निकायतकताग /Complainant VERSUS बनाम PIO NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL TEACHERS TRAINING &

RESEARCH, RTI CELL, SECTOR-26, CHANDIGARH-160019 ….प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 10.05.2024 CPIO replied on : 17.07.2024 First appeal filed on : 19.06.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 17.07.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.08.2024 Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.05.2024 seeking the following information:-

“Kindly provide the copies of office orders for clearance of probation of all Group A staff members in NITTTR Chandigarh after severing the names so that it does not qualify as the personal information”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 17.07.2024 stating as under:-

“The question is ambiguous in nature as it does not contain the name of Group A staff for which information is being sought.”

3. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 17.07.2024, upheld reply of the CPIO.

4. Challenging the FAA’s order, Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.

Respondent: Dr. Niraj Bala, Professor/CPIO along with Dr. Ramakrishnan, Professor/ Deemed PIO present through video conference.

5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.

6. Complainant remained absent during hearing despite service.

7. CPIO stated that the Complainant has sought copy of office orders for clearance of probation of all Group A staff of Respondent Public Authority. In this regard, it was initially informed to the Complainant that the information sought by Complainant is vague as no name was mentioned by him in the RTI application. After, receipt of hearing notice from the CIC, the CPIO rechecked the records and noticed that information sought by the Complainant pertains to third party, therefore, consent of the Group ‘A’ officers were sought under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 who denied disclosure of their personal information. This factual position was informed to the Complainant. CPIO apprised the Bench that subject matter of information sought in pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana bearing CWP No. 16082/2024 in which the next date of hearing is 28.04.2026. Therefore, at this juncture, CPIO expressed her inability to disclose the information till final verdict of the Court.

Decision

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that this case is a Complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC

864 wherein it was held as under:-

“…Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.

This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statuto