Central Information Commission
Preetha J vs Directorate General Of Quality ... on 14 May, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475
Preetha J ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Directorate General of ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Quality Assurance, New Delhi
2. The Controllerate of Quality
Assurance (Heavy Vehicles) -
Avadi, Chennai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.03.2025 FA : 23.04.2025 SA : Nil
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 22.05.2025 Hearing : 07.05.2026
Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2025 seeking information on the following points:
➢ Kindly provide the following information in respect of CQA (AVL), AVADI, Electronics Discipline under technical directorate of DQA (CV) please.
1. Certified copy of Number of Officers/staff Holding HVF Medical Cards, CGHS Cards: kindly Provide a certified copy of the list of officers/Staff who have been CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475 Page 1 of 7 issued HVF Medical cards, CGHS cards. Year-wise breakup from 2005 to the present.
2. as per government service rules, if any Government officer/Staff can simultaneously hold both CGHS and HVF medical cards. If yes, Provide certified copies of rules/orders/circulars that clarify that a government employee can be a beneficiary of two medical schemes simultaneously.
3. Provide certified copies of my application letter dated 14 Jun 2019 for surrender of CGHS cards available in office records along with enclosures.
4. Swamys handbook can be quoted as policy or procedure. If yes, provide certified copy of the same as
5. True attested copy of hospitality allowance claimed by me since 2022 to till date and the sanction put up for the same.
6. True attested copy of td requisition AND ADVANCE CLAIM OF THEREOF FROM JAN 2023 TO TILL DATE AS GIVEN TO CDA AVADI ALONG WITH NOTE SHEET COPY.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.04.2025. The FAA vide order dated 22.05.2025 held the following:
"8. In response to the 1st Appeal, the CPIO Chennai zone DGQA vide para 5(d) has now offered following comments :-
(a) Ms. Preetha J had submitted a RTI application vide Registration No. DGOQA/R/E/25/00124 dated 06 Mar 2025. It was received by CQA(HV), Avadi on 18 Mar 2025 vide DGQA/PI Cell Itr No. C/87570/7239/DGQA/PI Cell dt 11 Mar 2025.
(b) The requisite RTI information pertains to CQA(AVL), Avadi. Hence, it was forwarded to CQA(AVL), Avadi for obtaining information vide this office Itr No. 15062/RTI/ADMN dt 20 Mar 2025.CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475 Page 2 of 7
(c) However, CQA(AVL) Avadi forwarded the reply directly to DGQA/PI Cell vide Itr No. 20902/PC/RTI dt 03 Apr 2025 with intimation to CPIO, Chennai Zone for information.
(d) Later, DGQA/PI Cell informed to CQA(AVL), Avadi through e-mail dt 15 Apr 2025 that the reply may be forwarded directly to the applicant by the CPIO Chennai zone. The same was forwarded to CQA(HV), Avadi by CQA(AVL), Avadi vix., e-mail on 24 Apr 2025.
(e) Meanwhile, CQA(AVL), Avadi orally communicated that the RTI reply may be issued directly to the individual by CPIO, Chennai. Hence, the reply was issued to Ms Preetha J vide this office Itr No. 15062/RTI/ADM dt 23 Mar 2025. The same was forwarded via e-mail and regt post (copy of Ackg enclosed).
9. The perusal of files reveals that the CPIO did not follow the provisions of section 7 & 8 of the RTI Act 2005.
10. In the matter of RTI Act, the concerned CPIO is finally responsible to Hon'ble CIC, this may please be noted for future RTI issues of your Zone. DECISION
11. Towards the compliance of the speaking order, the letters mentioned at para 5(d) and in para 8(c) with all enclosures be provided to the applicant within three weeks from the receipt of this order."
3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
4. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Manoj Pandey, SSO, attended the hearing through video conference and S.B. Yadav, Director, DGQA HQ, attended the hearing in-person.
CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475 Page 3 of 75. The respondent (New Delhi) while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had transferred the RTI application to CPIO, Chennai Zone on 11.03.2025.
The CPIO, Chennai Zone, DGQA submitted that the RTI application was disposed of vide letter dated 03.04.2025 and the said reply was also forwarded to CQA (AVL), Avadi on 23.04.2025. The contents of the said reply is extracted below for reference:
"1. The Sought information pertains to Individual employees working in CQA(AVL), Avadi is personal in nature. Hence, the same shall not be disclosed. It is also intimated that this Office is not authorised to issue any CGHS card and HVF card.
Refer Sec 8(j) of RTI act 2005.
2. The sought information is Hypothetical in nature. Interpretation of information and comments on information are outside the purview of RTI Act 2005. Refer Sec 2(f) of RTI act 2005.
3. Ms Preetha J application for Surrender of CGHS Card not forwarded through this Office. Hence, reply for sought information is irrelevant
4. The sought information is Hypothetical in nature. Interpretation of information and comments on information are outside the purview of RTI Act Refer Sec 2(f) of RTI act 2005.
5. & 6. The Sought information pertains to individual employee working in CQA(AVL), Avadi, and is personal in nature. Hence, the same shall not be disclosed through RTI act 2005.
The employee claims are forwarded to LAO, Avadi, and the same was passed by LAO, Avadi and amount credited in the account of employee. However, the same can be inspected by the employee by seeking an application to the concerned authority. However, in pursuance to the FAA's directions to provide the reply again along with all enclosures, the revised reply was given on 05.06.2025."CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475 Page 4 of 7
The contents of the revised reply dated 05.06.2025 given by the CPIO, Chennai, in compliance of the FAA's order is extracted below for reference:
"2. Towards the compliance of speaking order vide u/r, the following documents are attached herewith for your information as per the direction of DGQA 1st Appellate Authority vide under reference.
a) The Comments of the CPIO Chennai Zone DGQA submitted vide Itr No.15062/RTI/ADM dt 08 May 2025. (Note: Date mentioned in Para 2 (e) of this office itr iNo 15062/RTI/ADvi dt 08 May 2025, may piease be read as 23 Apr 2025 in place of 23 Mar 2025 due to typo error)
b) Reply of CQA(AVL), Avadi issued vide Itr No.20902/PC/RTI dt 03 Apr 2025, which was already sent to you by registered post, for which acknowledgment has also been received by this office."
The written submissions filed by the CPIO, DGQA, Chennai dated 05.05.2026 and DGQA, Delhi dated 27.04.2026 are taken on record.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent (Chennai Zone) claimed to have responded to the appellant on 03.04.2025/23.04.2025. However, during the course of hearing, the representative of the CPIO was unable to present the facts of the case. Perusal of their written submissions dated 05.05.2026 also reflect ambiguity and lack of synopsis of dates indicating the movement of RTI file and their multiple responses. The CPIO has neither marked the enclosures and relevant replies relied upon nor was well versed with the facts to be able to address the queries raised by the Bench. Commission admonishes the representative from Chennai Zone for his unpreparedness.
Furthermore, the contents of the reply given by the CPIO on 23.04.2025 are insufficient and incorrect. In response to point no. 3 of the RTI application, wherein the appellant has sought a copy of her own application, has not been adequately responded.
CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475 Page 5 of 7In respect of the sought information, the appellant's attention is drawn towards the judgment passed by Madras High Court in the case of High Court, Madras v. Central Information Commission, Writ Petition No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 wherein it was held as follows:-
".......we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right ............. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
The CPIO is cautioned to be careful while examining the nature of RTI request and provide a legally tenable reply, in future and is advised to delegate his duties to a well-prepared representative in case of his/her absence. No further scope of relief lies in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 14.05.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475 Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Public Information Cell, Room No. 117, B Block, Defence Office Complex, Africa Avenue, Sarojini Nagar P.O, New Delhi - 110023
2. The CPIO, The Controllerate of Quality Assurance (Heavy Vehicles) -
CQA (HV), Avadi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600054
3. Preetha J CIC/DGOQA/A/2025/625475 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)