Central Information Commission
Riju R vs Ministry Of Heavy Industry on 24 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOHIN/A/2024/638385
Riju R ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO Department of Heavy
Industry, Room No. 61, Udyog
Bhavan, New Delhi -110011
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026
Date of Decision : 16.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 10.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 25.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.05.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 28.08.2024
Information sought:
Page 1 of 61. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"(1) Does FCRI mention that, it is a Society Registered under societies act and reveal /Display its Society Registration Number PKD/CA/376/1987 along with NAME: Fluid Control Research Institute in the Name Boards and communications through Letter Heads to public and customers.
(2) What is the registration number of the society namely SWS (Staff Welfare Society) of FCRI and where it is being registered. (3) Does FCRI maintain reservation register and roster register for the appointments done so far (Yes/No).
(4) Are the appointment of employees done till date giving equal opportunity to aspirants (Yes/No).
(5) Are the appointments of employees done in FCRI after following necessary procedures to be done in organisations where public appointment is followed. (Yes/No).
(6) Are the regular appointment done in FCRI till date after following competitive selection process (Yes/No). (7) Does FCRI administration department/personnel department maintain a copy of appointment order given to FCRI employees. (8) Are the appointment order given by FCRI for employing individuals a public document which is to be disclosed as per RTI act 2005 (Yes/No).
(9) Please furnish the following details in the appointment done in FCRI:-
(a) For which reservation categories their representation is more in number-post wise, also please specify the number.
(b) For which reservation categories the representation is less in number-post wise, also please specify the number.
(c) In merit category the representation is more in number post wise, also please specify the number.
(d) In merit category the representation is less in number post wise, also please specify the number. (10) Have FCRI put the tender no PUR/FCRI/W-
23126/SWS/CANTEEN/2023-24/01 in government portal and FCRI website on date the tender was floated (Yes/No). (11) Do the present administrative and public information officer Mr. M. Suresh disclose all the mandatory information about FCRI as per RTI ACT in the FCRI official website."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.04.2024 stating as under:
Page 2 of 6"The information being sought is not under the custody of this CPIO. The RTI request may be raised to the CPIO of FCRI and the details are here:
https://www.fcriindia.com/about-fcri/right-information/"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 30.05.2024 stated as under:
"(1) On the basis of records placed before the undersigned, it is observed that CPIO furnished reply on the RTI portal on 10.04.2024 stating that the information sought by the Applicant is not in his custody. As the applicant belongs to FCRI, he is well aware about the details of CPIO and AA appointed under RTI Act at FCRI, he should have submitted the application to CPIO at FCRI.
(2) It is further observed that the RTI was not disposed of by the CPIO within the stipulated time of 30 days. (3) In view of the above, CPIO is directed to strictly ensure that all applications received under RTI Act are disposed of within the stipulated time limit prescribed under the Act. (4) With the above observation and directions, the appeal filed by Shri Raju R stands disposed of. A copy of this order may be uploaded on the RTI portal also."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Riju R. Respondent: Not Present
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the RTI application dated 29.02.2024 sought specific information relating to the legal status, appointments, reservation registers, tender publication, and RTI compliance of FCRI. He submitted that the CPIO of the Department of Heavy Industry failed to transfer the RTI application to the concerned public authority within the statutory period of five days as mandated under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Instead, he was merely advised to approach the CPIO of FCRI on his own. The Appellant further submitted Page 3 of 6 that there was an inordinate delay in providing the information, as the final reply from FCRI was furnished only on 09.02.2026, almost two years after the filing of the RTI application.
7. Written submissions dated 04.02.2026 filed by the appellant is taken on record which states that the Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.02.2024 before the Department of Heavy Industry seeking certain information. The CPIO, vide reply dated 10.04.2024, stated that the information was not under his custody and advised the Appellant to file a fresh RTI application before the CPIO at Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI), instead of transferring the application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is further stated that the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 25.04.2024, which was disposed of on 30.05.2024. The Appellant contends that the CPIO's failure to transfer the application within five days, as mandated under Section 6(3), constitutes a clear violation of the RTI Act. Since FCRI functions under the administrative control of the Department of Heavy Industry, the Department cannot evade responsibility by directing the citizen to file a fresh RTI.
8. The respondent is not present despite having served the notice of hearing.
9. Written submissions dated 10.02.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO are taken on record which states that the RTI application dated 29.02.2024 was received by the US & CPIO (Sh. Inder Jeet Singh) on 01.03.2024. It is also stated that the information sought was not held by or under the custody of the respondent CPIO as the matter pertained to Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI). Accordingly, the applicant was advised to approach the CPIO, FCRI and the relevant contact details were provided. The Respondent has further stated that the RTI application was subsequently transferred on 02.02.2026 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, FCRI for necessary action and that the CPIO, FCRI furnished a reply on 09.02.2026.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties present and perusal of the records and written statements notes that in response to the RTI application dated 29.02.2024 the CPIO failed to transfer the RTI application to the concerned public authority within the statutory period of five days as mandated under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, respondent CPIO furnished a delayed reply on 10.04.2024 stating that the sought records are not under the custody of the respondent CPIO and the appellant may approach the FCRI. The Commission is of the view that merely advising the applicant to Page 4 of 6 approach another public authority does not discharge the statutory obligation of the respondent CPIO.
The Commission also takes note of the written submission of the respondent in which it is states that RTI application was transferred to the CPIO, FCRI under section 6(3) of the RTI Act on dated 02.02.2026 and thereafter CPIO, FCRI, furnished a point-wise reply to the RTI application on 09.02.2026. The Commission observes that under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 if an application is made to a public authority requesting information which is held by another public authority, or the subject matter is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the receiving authority shall transfer the application or the relevant part thereof to the appropriate public authority within five days of receipt and inform the applicant accordingly.
The Commission also takes serious note of the non-appearance of the concerned CPIO during the hearing.
In view of the above, the Commission hereby Show Cause to the respondent CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to explain why action should not be taken against him for failure to transfer the RTI application within the prescribed time, sending delayed and improper reply to the appellant and for non-appearance before the Commission during the hearing. His reply with the comments of FAA shall be submitted within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Nodal Officer, RTI in the Public Authority is directed to ensure compliance of the above directions.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 16.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S K Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO Department of Heavy Industry, Room No. 61, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi -110011 (2) FAA, RTI Department of Heavy Industry, Room No. 61, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi -110011 (3) Nodal Officer, RTI Department of Heavy Industry, Room No. 61, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi -110011 (4) Shri Riju R Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)