के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/608808 V Madhavan .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Directorate General Defence Estate, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, 1, Ullan Batar Road, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi – 110010 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 12.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 18.02.2025 First appeal filed on : 15.11.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:

“An Online Payment Module is provided in the E Chchawani Portal. Multiple option for payment is built in the Module. But, every remitter is redirected to a particular Unified Payment Interface, irrespective of the mode of payment chosen.

Please inform:

1. The name of the UPI approved to handle receipts in the Financial Years

2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

2. The total number of transactions handled by each of the approved UPI handled in the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

3. The aggregate amount collected by each of the approved UPI handled in the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

4. The amount of remuneration/transaction charge paid to each of the approved UPI during the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

5. The amount of fee, charge etc., approved to be collected by the UPI from the remitter.

6. The amount of fee, charge etc., paid to the Banks for the Online service provided by them.”

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO initially, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

4. The CPIO vide its letter dated 18.02.2025 had provided point-wise reply/information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri Shreyas Patel, Joint Director & DDG (IT), Shri Pradeep Mishra, Programmer and Ms. Tanu Jain, Dy. Director present in person.

5. Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken record.

6. During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated the contents of their written submissions and the relevant extracts of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

“It is informed that CPIO has furnished a detailed reply to the information asked by the Appellant (RTI No. DIGDE/R/E/23/00294) on 18/02/2025. The copy of the letter is also uploaded on the RTI Portal (copy enclosed). The First Appellate Authority disposed the First Appeal on 25/02/2025 (copy enclosed). 3. In the response to the para 2 of the written statement of the Appellant, the para-wise comments are submitted as under: a) The belated response has also obliterated the Appellant's right to make a pointed First Appeal. Besides, the reply of the CPIO is false and misleading with respect to information provided to point number 1, 4, 5 and 6. The information provided by the CPIO mentioned in the reply vide letter No. 83/62/DGDE/IT/RTI dated 18/02/2025 is factually correct and on the basis of information available in the office records. The reply is also in simple language and easy to understand by the citizen. The payment gateway i.e. “PayGov India (National Payment Services Platform, DeitY, GoI)” is being used for payments on eChhawani Portal. b) The UPI Handle of State Bank of India has not been used: As per PayGov, following UPI PSP Acquirer, where the UPI handle was used for receipts in financial years FY 21-22, FY 22-23, FY

23-24 is/are as follows (as asked by the appellant in his RTI application)

As per above information, it is clear that SBI has been included in UPI transactions. Therefore, the