2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5961
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Radha Raman Tripathy – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Chandigrah – Respondent
CIC/PCNWR/C/2023/626561/CCITC
##PAGE1##
के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067
िशकायत संূा / Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/C/2024/657089
Gaurav Singhal …िशकायतकता१/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employees State Insurance Corporation
New Delhi ... ঋितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 09/03/2026
Date of interim Decisions : 0 9/03/2026 & 27.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 22/10/2024
CPIO replied on 10/12/2024
First appeal filed on Not on record
FAA’s order dated Not on record
Complaint dated 24/12/2024
Information sought:
The complainant has filed RTI application dated 22/10/2024 seeking the
following information:
“I request you to kindly provide me with the CCTV footage from the following
areas for the dates from 12 October 2024 to 19 October 2024 during the lunch
hours:
1. Corridors
2. Lunch area/canteen
3. Classrooms
4. Hallways
Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/C/2024/657089 Page 1 of 7
1 / 8
##PAGE2##5. Cafeteria
6. Any other areas where students usually gather during lunch hours
Time Duration for Requested Footage:
From start time of lunch hours to end time of lunch hours each day, from 12
October 2024 to 19 October 2024.
Please provide the footage in digital format (USB drive, DVD, etc.), or you may
send it via WhatsApp to my number: ******0552 or the email address provided
below….”
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the complainant dated 10/12/2024
stated as under:
“Kindly refer to your RTI Application no. ESICO/R/E24/03513 dated:
22.10.2024, requesting therein to provide information under RTI Act- 2005. The
requisite information is enclosed.
It is further informed that applicant may prefer first appeal under 19(1) of RTI
Act, 2005, against the decision of CPIO, within thirty days of the receipt of this
communication before Dr. Nagaraj M., Dean, ESIC Dental College & Hospital,
Sec-15, Rohini, Delhi-89.”
3. The complainant did not file the first appeal with the First Appellate
Authority.
4. Challenging the reply of the CPIO, the complainant filed the Instant
Complaint on 24/12/2024.
Written Submission of the Respondent dated 05/03/2026 is taken on record
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Sovan Bera (Authorized Representative for the CPIO) participated
in the hearing in person
The complainant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing
despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent submits that the CCTV recording
from 12.10.2024 to 19.10.2024 are not available in NVR.
Further during the hearing, the Commission had explicitly directed the
Authorized Representative of the CPIO to file a detailed affidavit stating the
specific reason as to why the CCTV footage was deleted within a span of one
month by the end of the day
Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/ESICO/C/2024/657089 Page 2 of 7
2 / 8
##PAGE3##DECISION
In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission
made by the Authorized Representative of the CPIO, the commission had directed
him during the course of hearing to file a detailed affidavit to the commission
stating the specific reason as to why the CCTV footage was deleted within a span
of one month and it is noted with serious concern that despite the clear direction
of the Commission, the Authorized Representative has failed to file the said
affidavit and has thereby willfully disobeyed and not complied with the lawful
directions of the Commission.
The Commission further observes that the blatant denial of the information sought
by the complainant without furnishing any justification or supporting evidence,
reflects a mala fide intention on the part of the CPIO to withhold the information
in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also takes serious note of the absence of the CPIO during the
hearing, which has deprived the Commission of necessary clarifications and
demonstrates