Central Information Commission
V Madhavan vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 1 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/608808
V Madhavan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate General Defence
Estate, Raksha Sampada Bhawan,
1, Ullan Batar Road, Delhi
Cantonment, New Delhi - 110010 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025
Date of Decision : 30.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.02.2025
First appeal filed on : 15.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"An Online Payment Module is provided in the E Chchawani Portal. Multiple option for payment is built in the Module. But, every remitter is Page 1 of 5 redirected to a particular Unified Payment Interface, irrespective of the mode of payment chosen.
Please inform:
1. The name of the UPI approved to handle receipts in the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.
2. The total number of transactions handled by each of the approved UPI handled in the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.
3. The aggregate amount collected by each of the approved UPI handled in the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.
4. The amount of remuneration/transaction charge paid to each of the approved UPI during the Financial Years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.
5. The amount of fee, charge etc., approved to be collected by the UPI from the remitter.
6. The amount of fee, charge etc., paid to the Banks for the Online service provided by them."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO initially, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
4. The CPIO vide its letter dated 18.02.2025 had provided point-wise reply/information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Shreyas Patel, Joint Director & DDG (IT), Shri Pradeep Mishra, Programmer and Ms. Tanu Jain, Dy. Director present in person.
5. Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken record.
6. During the hearing, the Respondent reiterated the contents of their written submissions and the relevant extracts of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
Page 2 of 5"It is informed that CPIO has furnished a detailed reply to the information asked by the Appellant (RTI No. DIGDE/R/E/23/00294) on 18/02/2025. The copy of the letter is also uploaded on the RTI Portal (copy enclosed). The First Appellate Authority disposed the First Appeal on 25/02/2025 (copy enclosed).
3. In the response to the para 2 of the written statement of the Appellant, the para-wise comments are submitted as under: a) The belated response has also obliterated the Appellant's right to make a pointed First Appeal. Besides, the reply of the CPIO is false and misleading with respect to information provided to point number 1, 4, 5 and 6. The information provided by the CPIO mentioned in the reply vide letter No. 83/62/DGDE/IT/RTI dated 18/02/2025 is factually correct and on the basis of information available in the office records. The reply is also in simple language and easy to understand by the citizen. The payment gateway i.e. "PayGov India (National Payment Services Platform, DeitY, GoI)" is being used for payments on eChhawani Portal. b) The UPI Handle of State Bank of India has not been used: As per PayGov, following UPI PSP Acquirer, where the UPI handle was used for receipts in financial years FY 21-22, FY 22-23, FY 23-24 is/are as follows (as asked by the appellant in his RTI application) As per above information, it is clear that SBI has been included in UPI transactions. Therefore, the statement of the appellant is not correct. c) NIL charge policy on UPI has also not been followed CPIO has submitted that as per PayGov, since Regulatory Body RBI and the Government of India has put the NIL charge policy on UPI, PayGov India also has not collected any charges from the remitter or Cantonment Board for UPI. The information asked by the appellant in the RTI is pertaining to FY 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. In this period no UPI charges have been levied. Further, the correct screenshot of UPI payment is enclosed herewith which clearly indicates that no charges are being levied by payment gateway for UPI payments till date.
PayGov Screenshot submitted by appellant is of Net Banking and not of UPI. Therefore the appellant's submission is incorrect. d) "PAY GOV INDIA" is not used to aggregate the collections. Rather, aggregation has been centralized to M/s RAZORPAY, a licensed private payment aggregator. CPIO has replied that The PayGov India (National Payment Services Platform, DeitY, GoI) gateway is integrated with eChhawani Portal to provide the online payment collection facility to the citizen. PayGov platform is an Omni channel payment platform where option is provided to the payer to make payment through credit card, debit card, internet banking, UPI (through VPA & QR Code) and eWallets. Name of PayGov India is clearly visible on the landing page of payment gateway and Page 3 of 5 the same is visible in the screenshot provided in written statement of the appellant."
7. With respect to delay, the Respondent submitted as under:
"The delay in responding to the RTI request is sincerely regretted while acknowledging the importance of timely disposal of applications as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The appellant had asked voluminous data and the same was not readily available with this Dte. General. The delay has occurred mainly due to collection of the requisite information as sought by the Appellant, from various sources like other Govt Deptt / agencies like Cantonment Boards, PayGov, etc. 3. The delay was also due to unforeseen circumstances i.e. multiple transfer /postings in the office. Further, it is submitted that due to eOffice implementation in this office, migration of system from manual mode to digital mode also led to delay in searching and compiling the requisite data needed to reply to the said RTI request. 4. It is hereby assured that the Commission that necessary steps are being taken to prevent such occurrences in the future. 5. In view of the above, it is humbly requested that the delay may kindly be condoned."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that complete information has not been provided to him by the Respondent within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that now at the stage of second appeal, they have provided complete information to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.02.2025. The Respondent further tendered his unconditional apology for the delay.
10. The Commission observes that it is only at the stage of second appeal that the Respondent has provided requisite information to the Appellant. The said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which the Respondent has not yet shared with the Appellant. The Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that complete information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period as per the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 511. The Respondent is directed to share a copy of their written submissions along with enclosures, if any, with the Appellant on his e-mail ID, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
12. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate General Defence Estate, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, 1, Ullan Batar Road, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi - 110010 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)