Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 30-06-2025

CPIO replied on : 24-07-2025

First appeal filed on : 02-08-2025

First Appellate Authority’s order : 26-08-2025

2nd Appeal dated : 24-09-2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30-06-2025 seeking the following information:

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24-07-2025 stating as under:

“Point No-3, Ledger of NCUI payment for the year 2023-24,2024-25 and 2025-26 is enclosed for your reference please.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-08-2025. The FAA vide its order dated 26-08-2025, upheld the reply given by the CPIO

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Attended the hearing through video conference.

Respondent: Mr. Dhirender Kumar, AGM and Mr. Saurav Agarwal, AGM, attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant submitted, that he sought information regarding the laptops that were distributed to GM level, AGM level, officers for office work; details of expenditure incurred on distribution of laptops during the year 2023-24, 2024-25 etc. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the respondent.

6. The Respondent submitted, that they had provided copy of ledger of NCUI payment for point no.3; number of laptops given to officers, expenditure of those laptops to the appellant. The respondent also submitted, that they had replied to the point no. 5 vide letter dated 28.07.2025 and provided the available numerical figures to the appellant. The respondent further submitted, that the said Basmati Export Development Foundation (BEDF) does not come under the definition of public authority as defined U/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, and they had informed the same to the appellant vide letter dated 28.08.2025. The respondent elaborated that, the BEDF does not receive substantial financial support from the Government and hence, it does not come under the definition of public authority. The respondent relied on the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. State of Kerala & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 82; Adiwasi Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. V. State Information Commissioner and Anr., 2019 SCC Online Bom 1068; Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 111; G. Chinnathambi v. Tamil Nadu Information Commissioner, 2020 SCC Online Mad 11087; President, Madhanam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society v. State Information Commissioner & Ors. 2024 SCC Online Mad 1926, to support their contention.

7. The further submissions of the respondent are as below: