Central Information Commission
Vipul Kumar Singh vs Indian Institute Of Management, Mumbai on 16 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/630030 +
CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629661 +
CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629089 +
CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628980 +
CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628977
Dr. Vipul Kumar Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Institute of
Management: Mumbai, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 630030 25.04.2024 Not on 28.05.2024 Not on 13.07.2024
record record
2. 629661 26.04.2024 17.05.2024 17.05.2024 22.06.2024 06.07.2024
3. 629089 17.04.2024 Not on 18.05.2024 Not on 08.07.2024
record record
4. 628980 25.04.2024 27.05.2024 28.05.2024 22.06.2024 06.07.2024
5. 628977 25.04.2024 14.05.2024 14.05.2024 21.06.2024 06.07.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 08.10.2025
Date of Decision: 15.10.2025
CORAM:
Page 1 of 10
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/630030
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
As per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, please provide the following information for the meetings of the Board of Governors of Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Mumbai (Erstwhile NITIE Mumbai) held between May 1, 2023, and April 24, 2024.
1. A copy of the Agenda of the meeting.
2. A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting.
3. A copy of the List of Attendees.
4. Copy of any other document related to the Meeting circulated before or after the meeting.
1.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 28.05.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 1.2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629661
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Certified Copy of the Service Matter Representation dated 27.09.2022, made by Dr. Vipul Kumar Singh, Associate Professor to the Director, NITIE Mumbai (Now IIM Mumbai).Page 2 of 10
2. Certified copy of all Office Orders issued in the context of the above-mentioned subject matter.
3. Certified copy of the report of Empanelled Expert constituted in the above- mentioned subject matter.
4. Certified copy of the report of the Internal Committee constituted in the above- mentioned subject matter.
5. Certified copy of the report of the Personal Committee constituted in the above- mentioned subject matter. ..., etc./ other related information 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Response (Ser 1): The information should be available with the applicant itself. Response (Ser 2): Certified copy of Office order attached (Annexure I) Response (Ser 3): Certified copy of Expert Advice attached (Annexure II) Response (Ser 4): Certified copy enclosed (Annexure III) Response (Ser 5): Certified Copy of recommendation of Personnel Committee (Attached IV) Etc."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.06.2024 observed as under: -
"The desired information had already been provided and the information related to external expert involves personal information and is therefore exempted under section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
Further, documents to ascertain the date of Personal Committee & Board Meeting in the month of Jun 2023 is enclosed for your information."Page 3 of 10
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629089
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
As per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, please provide the following for the meetings of the Board of Governors of IIM Mumbai (Erstwhile NITIE Mumbai) held between May 1, 2023, and April 16, 2024.
1. A copy of the Agenda of the meeting.
2. A copy of the minutes of the meeting.
3. A copy of the list of attendees.
4. Copy of any other document related to the meeting circulated before or after the meeting.
3.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 18.05.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 3.2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628980
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
As per the RTI Act, please provide the following information in respect of each Faculty and Group A Staff joined Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Mumbai (Erstwhile NITIE Mumbai) for the period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2022.
1. Name of the Faculty and Group A Staff Joined the institution NITIE Mumbai (now IIM Mumbai).Page 4 of 10
2. Name of the Post Graduate Degree on the basis job is acquired at NITIE Mumbai.
3. Percentage of Marks scored in Post Graduate Degree on the basis job is claimed at NITIE Mumbai
4. Month and Year of Award of Post Graduate Degree.
5. Month and Year of Award of PhD Degree. ..., etc./ other related information 4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Response (to Ser 1, 6, 7 & 8): As per list attached Response (to ser 2, 3, 4 & 5): The Information related to third party and hence, disclosure of information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.06.2024 observed as under: -
"The desired information has already been provided. Further, it is intimated that there was a typographical error in the pay scale mentioned in respect of Lt. Cdr. Nisha Singh (Retd.). A corrected copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your information."
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628977
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 5 of 10As per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, please provide the following information for Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Mumbai (Erstwhile NITIE Mumbai) for the period 1st April 2022 to 24th April 2024.
1. Is any Corruption or administrative maladministration Complaint has been filed against the Director Prof. Manoj Kumar Tiwari to Board of Governors (BOG) of IIM Mumbai, Yes or No.
2. If yes, please provide the complaint/reference number and nature of complaint.
3. Please provide the certified copy of the action taken report on the complaint.
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1: The desired Information is not available in the Office.
2-3: Please refer to Serial No. 1.
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.07.2024.
Hearing proceedings and Decision:-
6. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent MS. Parul Suchank, Assistant Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
7. In file nos. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/630030 and CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629089, the respondent submitted that in both the case, the RTI application was identical nature Page 6 of 10 against which a reply was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 27.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. Certified copy of agenda items list.
2. certified copy of first page of minutes of respective BoG indicating the list of attendees."
When queried by the Commission for not responded point no. 2 and 4 of the RTI application, the respondent stated that documents sought on above said point contained disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant, hence, the same was not provided. Further, the First Appellate Authority passed an order on 27.09.2024.
Further, in file nos. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629661, CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628980 and CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628977, the RTI applications were responded by the CPIO vide letters dated 17.05.2024, 27.05.2024 and 14.05.2024 and point-wise available information had been provided to the appellant. A combined written submission dated 30.09.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
Reference 1: CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/630030 The desired information was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 27.08.2024, except the portion withheld under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the same relates to an ongoing disciplinary inquiry (Annexure I). The applicant was also requested to specify any further query, to enable the Institute to provide available information. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be dismissed.
Reference 2: CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629661 The desired information was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure II). The subsequent appeal under this RTI application contained allegations in nature, which could not be adjudicated under the RTI framework. Accordingly, the First Appellate Authority disposed of the matter vide order dated enclosed as (Annexure III). Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be dismissed.Page 7 of 10
Reference 3: CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629089 The subject matter of this RTI application is repetitive in nature and has already been addressed in Reference 1. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble CIC against repetitive RTI queries.
Reference 4: CIC/NIBMU/A/2024/628980 The desired information was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 27.05.2024, except the portion exempted under Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary capacity) and Section 8(1)(j) (personal information) of the RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure IV). In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be dismissed. Reference 5: CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628977 The desired information was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 14.05.2024. Therefore, the present appeal is infructuous and may kindly be dismissed. In view of the above facts and submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly dismiss the above appeals."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that reply furnished by the CPIO in file nos. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/630030 and CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629089 is incomplete as point no. 2 and 4 have not been responded. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a reply on above said points to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeals are disposed of.
9. Further, the Commission observes that in file nos. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/629661, CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628980 and CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628977, the CPIOs have provided appropriate replies to the appellant vide letters dated 17.05.2024, 27.05.2024 and 14.05.2024. Further, in file no. CIC/NIEMU/A/2024/628977, the appellant has Page 8 of 10 sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of "information"
as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."
10. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 15.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Management: Mumbai, P.O. IIM Mumbai, Vihar Lake, Powai, Mumbai - 400087 Page 9 of 10 2 Dr. Vipul Kumar Singh Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)