के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा /Second Appeal No. CIC/ICARH/A/2024/644504 िशकायत /Complaint No CIC/ICARH/C/2024/644510 ASHUTOSH GAUTAM ….(cid:871)शकायतकता(cid:91)/Complainant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Delhi ... ঋितवादीगण /Respondents Date of Hearing : 02/02/2026 Date of Decision : 11/02/2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on 27/07/2024 CPIO replied on 23/08/2024 First appeal filed on 27/08/2024 FAA’s order dated 08/07/2024 Second Appeal/Complaint dated 06/10/2024 and 07/10/2024 (Both the cases arise out of the same RTI application, therefore they have been clubbed for the purpose of adjudication)

Information sought:

The Appellant/Complainant has filed RTI application dated 27/07/2024 seeking the following information: -

“Ashutosh Gautam, presently posted as Assistant Legal Adviser, ICAR Zone-4, CRIJAF, Kolkata (West Bengal), Residing at B-6, Krishi Vihar, New Delhi-

110048, Mobile Number 7982713337 CIC/ICARH/C/2024/644510 Page 1 of 7

1.Please provide the soft copies of entire documents including note sheets of file no. 39-4/2001-Vig. of ICAR Hqrs.

2.Please provide the soft copy of letter No. 39-4/2001-Vig. dated 31.05.2001 of ICAR Hqrs.

3.Please provide the soft copies of entire documents, including note-sheets of file no. 1-5/2019-Vig. I of ICAR Hqrs.

4.Please provide the soft copies of entire documents, including note-sheets of file no. 2-4/2019-Vig. I based on which letter no. 2-4/2019-Vig. I dated 07.06.2019 and other subsequent communications have been issued by ICAR Hqrs..”

2.The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 23/08/2024 stating as under:

“Reply No. 1.Relevant documents are enclosed herewith.

Reply No. 2. As per the CIC Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 in Shri Satya Vijay Singh v. Central Vigilance Commission “the file notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Reply No. 3. Further, the files contain the names of officers who have deliberated in the matter. The disclosure of the information would expose the officers involved to retribution or other agencies as observed by the CIC in CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.

Reply No. 4. Hence, the requested information is denied under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant/Complainant, filed a First Appeal dated

27/08/2024. The FAA vide its order dated 08/07/2024, held as under:-

“Whereas the applicant Shri Ashutosh Gautam, R/o Flat No. B-6, Krishi Vihar, New Delhi-110048 vide RTI E-Registration Number ICARH/R/E/24/00388 dated 27.07.2024 had sought information in 4 points related to soft copies of entire documents including note sheets of three file nos. 39-4/2001-Vig. (Point no. 1), 1-5/2019-Vig.I & 2-4/2019-Vig.I (Point no. 3&4) and also soft copy of letter no.

39-4/2001-Vig dated 31.05.2001 (Point no. 2).

CIC/ICARH/C/2024/644510 Page 2 of 7 Whereas Sh. Somnath, Under Secretary (Vig-I) & CPIO disposed of the said RTI application vide letter F.No. 110-1/2024-Vig.-I dated 23.08.2024 by providing the applicant the information on two points (Point no. 1&2) related to file no. 39- 4/2001-Vig. and the copy of letter no. 39-4/2001-Vig. Dated 31.05.2001. However, the information on remaining two points (Point no. 3&4) related to other two files was denied under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 citing decision of the CIC in case of Shri Satya Vijay Singh Vs. CVC.

Whereas the applicant has made an appeal vide ICARH/A/E/24/00080 dated 28.08.2024, stating inter alia that the order of CPIO on points no. 3&4 is malafide & arbitrary and the rationale applicable for supplying the information