Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravi Upadhyay vs Department Of Agricultural Research & ... on 20 February, 2026

                           के ीय सूचना आयोग
                     Central Information Commission
                        बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                     Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                      नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं    ा / Complaint No.              CIC/DOARE/C/2024/655661



Ravi Upadhyay                              ....िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                 VERSUS
                                  बनाम

CPIO,
Department of Agricultural Research & Education
New Delhi                                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                  : 19/02/2026
Date of Decision                 : 19/02/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on               17/11/2024
CPIO replied on                        26/11/2024
First appeal filed on                  14/12/2024
FAA's order dated                      10/01/2025
Complaint dated                        16/12/2024

Information sought

:

The complainant has filed RTI application dated 17/11/2024 seeking the following information:

...Vigilance Section of DARE or ASRB Headquarter or for the section / department which deals with the complaints received against Chairman or Member of DARE ASRB.

"1. Certified copy of complaints received against Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava while he has worked as Chairman and Member at DARE ASRB.

2. Certified copy of the actions the authorities taken upon those complaints along with the noting drafting done upon those complaints."

2. CPIO reply DARE vide reply dated 26.11.2024, had transferred the application to ASRB under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, as the subject matter pertains to the functional jurisdiction of ASRB as per our records.

3. The Complainant filed the First Appeal dated 14/12/2024 and the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 10/01/2025 is taken on record.

4.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission by filing instant Complaint on 16/12/2024.

Written Submission of the Respondent dated 17/02/2026 is taken on record.

5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent Respondent: Krishnakant Prasad, CPIO (DARE),AND Surendra Meena, SO participated in the hearing in person.

The Complainant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the commission despite due notice of hearing. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that information sought in the original RTI application was provided to the complainant.

DECISION The Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply was provided to the complainant by the CPIO under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore does not find any mala fide intention on the part of then CPIO.

Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:

"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant." "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information." "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."

Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.

In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no mala fide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.

It is further directed to the Respondent to send the copy of the Written Submission along with all the attached documents to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly send a compliance report to the commission within 7 days thereafter.

No further intervention of the commission is warranted. The Complaint stands disposed of Sd/-

Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 19.02.2026 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. -CIC/DOARE/C/2024/655661 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:

1. CPIO Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB), ICAR, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan, Hill Side Rd I, New Delhi - 110 012

2. CPIO ICAR - Department of Agricultural Research & Education, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001

3. Ravi Upadhyay Second Appeal/ Complaint No. -CIC/DOARE/C/2024/655661 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)