Central Information Commission
Dr M Sankarapandian vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare on 27 January, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594
Dr. M Sankarapandian ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Under Secretary and CPIO,
Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare,(Training Division),
Nirman Bhavan, New
Delhi-110011. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026
Date of Decision : 27.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2024
CPIO replied on : 17.09.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Complaint dated : 25.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Ref: 1.Order of CIC.HFW/A/2023/605199 dt. 14.03.2024
2. Order of CIC/MOHFW/A/2023/605231 dt. 14.03.2024
3. Order of CIC/MHFW/A/2023/670387 dt. 14.03.2024 CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 1 of 8 The honorable CIC in his three orders cited above has clearly mentioned that -- Thus, the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.
-the Commission is of the view that the CPIO has incorrectly denied information citing Section 8 (1) (g), (h) and (j) without application of mind. Information on routine administrative matters such as agenda and minutes of meetings should be suo motu disclosed on the website of the public authority unless it pertains to a subject matter which is exempted from disclosure as per any of the provisions listed under the RTI Act, 2005.
The commission had ordered GIRH& FWT, Gandhigram, Tamil Nadu in similar lines for disclosing the information in the Institute portal for all the recruitments, agendas and minutes of EC/FC/BoT and office council etc.,. The GIRH& FWT, Gandhigram, Tamil Nadu is bound to adhere the above orders, but purposely not disclosing it. Hence, it may be instructed to upload these information immediately as per the CIC orders cited above for the years atleast from 2022 to the date of uploading. Quoting administrative reasons for not uploading is against fact and dodging tactics. I also request that the above information may be provided within 48 hours as per section 7 (1) under RTI Act, 2005 since the information sought concerns life and liberty of many of our staff including myself."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 17.09.2024 stating as under:
"I am to refer to your RTI appeal bearing Registration No. MOHFW/R/E/24/02916 dated 29.08.2024 seeking information related to RTI Act, 2005 and to inform you that information sought is not available in the Training Division. Therefore, the said RTI application is hereby transferred to PIO. GIRH&FWT under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 with the request to furnish the information directly to the applicant under intimation to this Division of the Ministry."
3. The First Appeal and FAA order are not available on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Sawru Singh, Under Secretary and Shri Karthikeyan K., Administrative Officer, attended the hearing in person.CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 2 of 8
5. The Complainant stated that in the instant RTI Application, he is seeking compliance of previous directions of the Commission passed vide order dated 14.03.2024, wherein following directions were issued:
"Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that the CPIO has incorrectly denied information citing Section 8 (1) (g), (h) and (j) without application of mind. Information on routine administrative matters such as agenda and minutes of meetings should be suo motu disclosed on the website of the public authority unless it pertains to a subject matter which is exempted from disclosure as per any of the provisions listed under the RTI Act, 2005. In the context a reference can be made to the decision the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7845/2013 (Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India) dated 12.02.2018 wherein it was held as under:
10. The contention that notings made by a junior officer for use by his superiors is third party information, which requires compliance of Section 11 of the Act, is unmerited. Any noting made in the official records of the Government/Public Authority is information belonging to the concerned Government/Public Authority. The question whether the information relates to a third party is to be determined by the nature of the information and not its source. The Government is not a natural person and all information contained in the official records of the Government / public authority is generated by individuals (whether employed with the Government or not) or other entities. Thus, the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.
11. Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.
In view of the above observations, the Commission directs Shri K Karthikeyan, CPIO and AO to revisit the RTI application and provide point wise information permissible for disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The Commission also directs Shri K Karthikeyan, to suo motu disclose the above information permissible for disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005 on the website of the public authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in the interest of transparency and accountability and in order to obviate the necessity for information seekers to avail such information by filing RTI applications in future."
6. The Complainant apprised the Bench that the Respondent i.e. Shri K Karthikeyan, CPIO and AO/Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 3 of 8 Welfare Trust, Dindigul, had partially complied with directions of the Commission, wherein information contained in 1380 pages were provided to him but the Respondent failed to upload the same on the website as directed by the previous Bench of the Commission.
7. Shri K Karthikeyan, Administrative Officer/Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Dindigul, submitted that in compliance with the previous directions of the Commission, all the relevant information was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 07.11.2024, stating as under:
"This is with reference to the letter no. A-11033/35/2023/Trg. Dated: 17 September 2024, received from the Under Secretary & CPIO, Training Section, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), regarding the RTI Registration No. MOHFW/R/E/24/02916, we have visited the RTI application in accordance with the Ministry's direction.
We hereby furnish the following information/details to address the points raised under the RTI Act, 2005, to the Appellant, while also intimating the Ministry accordingly.
Information for the following points:
1. Order of CIC/MOHFW/A/2023/605199 dt. 14.03.2024
2. Order of CIC/MOHFW/A/2023/605231 dt. 14.03.2024
3. Order of CIC/MH&FW/A/2023/670387 dt. 14.03.2024 The honorable CIC in his three orders cited above has clearly mentioned that-Thus, the reasoning, that the noting or information generated by an employee during employment information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed. The course of his is his Commission is of the view that the CPIO has incorrectly denied information citing Section 8 (1) (g), (h) and (j) without application of mind. Information on routine administrative matters such as agenda and minutes of meetings should be Suo motu disclosed on the website of the public authority unless it pertains to a subject matter which is exempted from disclosure as per any of the provisions listed under the RTI Act, 2005.
The commission had ordered GIRH& FWT, Gandhigram, Tamil Nadu in similar lines for disclosing the information in the Institute portal for all the recruitments, agendas and minutes of EC/FC/BoT and office council etc., The GIRH& FWT. Gandhigram, Tamil Nadu is bound to adhere the above orders, but purposely not disclosing it. Hence, it may be instructed to upload these information immediately as per the CIC orders cited above for the years at-least from 2022 to the date of uploading. Quoting administrative reasons for not uploading is against fact and CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 4 of 8 dodging tactics. I also request that the above information may be provided within 48 hours as per section 7 (1) under RTI Act, 2005 since the information sought concerns life and liberty of many of our staff including myself. We are writing to address the concerns raised in your R11 application regarding the compliance with the orders issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the following cases:
1. CIC Order MOHFW/A/2023/605199 dated 14.03.2024 2 CIC Order MOHFW/A/2023/605231 dated 14:05 2024 3 CIC Order MH&FW/A/2023/670387 dated 14.03.2024 As per the directives of the CIC, we have provided a comprehensive response to the Appellant on the following dates Order CIC/MOHFW/A/2023/605231: Response sent on 18.04.2024 Order CIC/MH&FW/A/2023/670387: Response sent on 17.04.2024 Order CIC/MOHFW/A/2023/605199; Response sent on 12.04.2024 In total, we have shared 1,380 pages of documentation pertaining to the requested information up to the year 2022. The CK has emphasized that the GIRH&FWT Gandhigram, Tamil Nadu, is required to disclose all point-wise information permissible under the RTI Act, 2005. As an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Institute adheres to its own service rules, which are outlined in our bye-laws.
Regarding recruitment activities, we would like to inform you that, only the selected incumbent name details against the post name can be published in the institute website. Furthermore, we are not able to upload the information concerning the Office Council representations, agendas, minutes, and Board of Trustees (BoT) discussions to our Institute's website, since these documents are considered confidential as they involve sensitive administrative decisions. We acknowledge that there may be some administrative delays in uploading the Reframed Service Rules due to the ongoing transition in the Director's position and the upgrade of the Institute website. In the meantime, the current version of the Reframed Sprice Rules is available on our Institute's website for ready reference."
8. He added that information pertaining to the Office Council representations, agendas, minutes, and Board of Trustees, were no uploaded on the website.
9. The Commission interjected and asked the Respondent to explain the reasons for not complying with the previous directions of the Commission in totality, he failed to provide a cogent reply. He further assured the Bench that he will upload the information on the website in compliance with the previous direction of the Bench.
CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 5 of 8Decision
10. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time-honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
11.
11. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. It is observed that the Complainant in the instant RTI Application is seeking compliance of previous directions of the Commission passed vide order dated 14.03.2024 in Second Appeals bearing No. CIC/ MOHFW/A/2023/605199, CIC/MOHFW/A/2023/605231 and CIC/MHFW/A/2023/670387. It is observed that Shri K Karthikeyan, Administrative Officer/Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Dindigul, had partially complied with directions of the Commission, wherein information contained in 1380 pages were provided to Complainant but the Respondent has failed to upload the same on the website as directed by the previous Bench of the Commission.
CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 6 of 8Therefore, the Commission admonishes his casual approach while complying with the directions of the Commissions.
12. During the hearing, Shri K Karthikeyan, Administrative Officer, has assured the Bench that the necessary and relevant information will be upload on the website in compliance with the previous direction of the Bench.
13. The Commission would like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recently in case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021, vide its judgement dated 17.08.2023, has held as under:
"25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'. The Central and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have also noted the special power of 'Monitoring and Reporting' conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., 'to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority".
26. "For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act."
CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 7 of 814. In view of the above, Shri K Karthikeyan, Administrative Officer, is advised to fulfill his commitment made during the hearing, failing which show-cause proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated against him.
The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 Copy To:
The FAA, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (Training Division), Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.CIC/MH&FW/C/2024/657594 Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)