##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सचू ना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग,(cid:330) मिु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/DHEDU/C/2025/606021/MSD&E

Madhu Kant Thakur ….िशकायतकता(cid:330) /Complainant

VERSUS

बनाम

CPIO

NATIONAL PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,

RTI CELL, 3rd FLOOR, 301-302 COPIΑ

CORPORATE SUITS, PLOT No.-9,

JASOLA VIHAR, DELHI-110025 …..(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 21.04.2026

Date of Decision : 22.04.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 27.11.2024

CPIO replied on : Not on record

First appeal filed on : 28.11.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

Complaint dated : 03.02.2025

Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2025 (online) seeking

the following information:

CIC/DHEDU/C/2025/606021/MSD&E Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

“1. Send the certified copy of the advertisement for the posts of assistant

professor (on contract), 2017 for engineering colleges under the TEQIP

Project.

2. Send the certified copy of the result of the above advertisement with the

subject-wise name list of selected candidates.

3. Send the institute allotment list for the selected candidates under the

above recruitment.”

2. The CPIO reply is not on record.

3. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2024.

The FAA order is not available on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the

Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent.

Respondent: Absent.

5. Both the parties remained absent in the hearing.

Decision

6. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under

Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to

ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due

to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI

Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in “Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of

Manipur & Anr.”bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided

on 12.12.2011 has 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

CIC/DHEDU/C/2025/606021/MSD&E Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

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 statutory provisions. The

contention of the Complainant that information can be accessed

through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19

of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily

and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court

should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure

which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time-

honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor

[(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be

done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and

all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.”

7. In this case, the Commissions observes that no reply qua the instant RTI

Application has been given to the Complainant as per available records.

Further the Respondent did not participate in the hearing. Accordingly, the

Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the concerned

CPIO for neither providing any reply nor