##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

File No: CIC/CPWER/A/2025/104769

Kamla Devi Busar ….अपीलकता१ /Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

The CPIO ….ঋितवादीगण /Respondent

O/o the Executive Engineer,

Jaipur 1, CPWD, Kendriya Sadan,

Block A, Sector 10, Vidyadhar Nagar,

Jaipur - 302039

Date of Hearing : 07.07.2026

Date of Decision : 10.07.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal:

RTI application filed on : 29.08.2024 ( To be read as 29.05.2024)

CPIO replied on : 21.06.2024 (Copy not available on record)

First appeal filed on : 05.07.2024

First Appellate Authority’s : N.A

order

Second Appeal dated : 14.02.2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application on 29.08.2024 seeking the

following information :

“1) पআ ॿमांक 7(38/ (cid:725)ा/उ अं-111/2013/836/ िदनाँक 27/3/15 िजसे फ़ाइल

नोिटंग से बनाया गया है, उसकी ঋितिलिप उपल(cid:617) करावे!

Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

2) पআ ॿमांक 7(38)/(cid:725)ा/उ अं-111/2013/584/ िदनाँक 27/2/15 की फ़ाइल

नोिटंग की ঋितयाँ उपल(cid:617) करावे! (दोनों की ঋितिलिपया सलं্ है)

3) उঢ दोनों पআो पर काय१पालक अिभयंता (यो-11) के ह(cid:721)ा঒र है उनका नाम

व वत१मान पदनाम बताये!

2. Having no reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First

Appeal on 05.07.2024. The FAA order is not available on record.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the

Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present

Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Bhatt, Asst Engineer & CPIO, CPWD, Jaipur

4. Proof of having served a copy of a second appeal to the respondent

while filing the same in CIC is not available on record

5. The Appellant is not present despite service of notice of hearing.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the

RTI application dated 29.08.2024, filed by the appellant was never

received in their office as per their records. Consequently, the

respondent claimed that they were unable to process or provide a reply

to the said application. On being pointed out that the appellant had

attached proof of dispatch in her application dt 29.05.2024, the

respondent after checking his record, confirmed that it was received by

them and a reply was sent on 21.06.2024 stating that sought

information is not available.

7. The respondent submitted a reply before the Commission dated

30.06.2026 and a copy of the same is provided to the appellant, stating

as under:

“िवषय:- NOTICE OF HEARING FOR APPEAL/COMPLAINT

संदभ१:- Your office letter No. CIC/CPWER/A/2025/104769 Dated:

18.06.2026

उঢ िवषया(cid:566)ग१त एवं संदिभ१त पআ के ॿम म७ सूिचत है िक आवेदक ঒ीमित

कमला देवी बूसर की उঢ संदिभ१त आर.टी.आई. िदनांक 29.08.2024 इस

Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

काया१लय के द(cid:721)ावेजो ं के अनुसार इस काया१लय म७ ঋा(cid:593) नही ं होना पाया गया

है।“

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the

case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that in

the hearing notice, the date of RTI application is mentioned as

29.08.2024 which is incorrect. As per records, date of RTI application is

29.05.2024 which is also confirmed by the respondent of having

received it. Further, the reply stated to have been provided by the

respondent on the RTI application dated 29.05.2024, is not found

satisfactory. The Commission observes that the CPIO, is obligated to

transfer the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act if the

subject matter pertains to another office, rather than simply stating that

the information is not available. The conduct of the respondent CPIO is

admonished, with the directions to remain careful in future while

dealing with RTI application.

The Commission also notes that the appellant was not present at the

time of hearing and no written submission has been filed by him, it

indicates his lack of interest in pursuing the matter further.

Since, the CPIO in this matter had failed to transfer the