Central Information Commission
Anand Kumar Singh vs Jamia Millia Islamia on 30 April, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: Twelve Matters.
(1) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/138734
(2) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/127631
(3) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/618766
(4) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/601417
(5) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/616734
(6) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/653104
(7) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/130622
(8) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/130630
(9) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/639974
(10) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/639980
ANAND KUMAR SINGH .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
THE CPIO
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA,
RTI CELL, ADMINISTRATION BLOCK,
2ND FLOOR, MIR-TAQI-MIR BUILDING,
MAULANA MOHAMMED ALI JAUHAR MARG,
JAMIA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110025 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2026
Date of Decision : 28.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
The above mentioned Second Appeals and Complaints have been clubbed
together for disposal through common order as the parties are common and
the subject matter of information sought are identical in nature.
Page 1 of 15
(1) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/138734
(2) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/127631
Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.06.2025
CPIO replied on : 04.08.2025
First appeal filed on : 13.08.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.09.2025
2nd Appeal/ Complaint dated : 14.11.2025, 22.08.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2025 seeking the following information:
"1. Vide its letter F.No. AS-27/RO/JMI/2025/FTS no. 845205 dated 16.06.2025, the Office of the Registrar of this public authority has notified the non-approval of this applicant's application for the 7th year extension by its Competent Authority. Please provide the following information pertaining to the same:
a) The certified copy of the complete file;
b) The certified copy of notice(s) issued to this applicant prior to denying the said extension;
c) The certified copy of records of any hearing held;
d) The decision-making process followed;
e) The name and designation of all members of the said Competent Authority;
f) Has this public authority complied with the principles of natural justice while denying the requested extension to this applicant? If yes, please provide the certified copy of the said records. If not, please specify;
g) Has this public authority complied with the Section 4(1)(d) of Chapter II of the RTI Act, 2005, that reads as "provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons", while denying the requested extension to this applicant? If yes, please provide the certified copy of the said records. If not, please specify;
h) Any other related information.
2. On 15.11.2023, the Dean, Faculty of Fine Arts ("FFA") of this public authority had held in her office a DRC meeting regarding correction in the direct PhD admission date of this applicant. The said meeting was Page 2 of 15 held in the presence of the following Committee members and office staff:
i) Prof. Bindulika Sharma, Dean FFA, and HOD Art History & Art Appreciation ("AHAA"),
ii) Prof. Kahkashan Y Danyal, Faculty of Law,
iii) Prof. Krishna Sankar Kusuma, AJK MCRC,
iv) Dr. Atul Sinha, AJK MCRC,
v)Ms. Mrinal Kulkarni, Deptt. of AHAA,
vi)Prof. Jyotsana Tiwari, NCERT, and,
vii)Mr. Zafarullah Khan, PA to Dean FFA,
viii) Mr. Danish, Staff O/o the Dean FFA,
ix) Mr. Abd Manaf, Staff Deptt. of AHAA,
x) Mr. Anil Kumar, Staff Deptt. of AHAA.
The said DRC meeting dated 15.11.2023 was video graphed by the office of the Dean FFA. Please provide a copy of that video recording, in a CD/DVD.
It is submitted that the information sought herein pertain to this applicant's own matter and, therefore, are not exempted from disclosure under any provisions so prescribed therein u/s 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Reliance is placed on the Decisions by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in Mr. Chiranjit Lal vs. Mr. Subhash Dodrai, PIO & SE, MCD, CIC/SG/A/2012/001446, decided on 03.07.2012, and in Mr. Ashu vs. CPIO, Sr. Supdt. Of Posts, CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769, decided on 28.11.2016."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 04.08.2025 stating as under:
"1.Query is under process with AR (Academic Section) and appropriate reply will be conveyed once a response is received.
2.As per reply received HOD-Fine Arts, D/o Art History & Art Appreciation, dated 17.07.2025, "No videography was officially done".
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 09.09.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 3 of 154. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant/Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and the Complaint.
(3) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/616734 (4) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/653104 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 26.10.2024 CPIO replied on : 19.11.2024 First appeal filed on : 17.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 14.01.2025 2nd Appeal dated : 11.04.2025 Information sought:
5. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. Refer to ANNEXURE - A, and provide the following information:
1.1 Certified copy of the application letter against which the Extension Letter dt. 22.11.2023 was issued to the applicant; 1.2 Excerpt of the applied clause from the Ordinance (Academic) No. 9 vide Notification No. 03/L&O/RO/JMI/2017, cited in the Extension Letter dt. 22.11.2023;
1.3 Certified copy of recommendations by the RAC pertaining to the Extension Letter dt. 22.11.2023;
1.4 Certified copy of recommendations by the DRC pertaining to the Extension Letter dt. 22.11.2023;
1.5 Certified copy of recommendations by the BOS pertaining to the Extension Letter dt. 22.11.2023;
1.6 Certified copy of the file noting pertaining to the extension letter dt. 22.11.2023; and 1.7 Certified copy of the correspondence pertaining to the extension letter dt. 22.11.2023;
1.8 Certified copy of any related records.
2. The applicant had submitted his application for an extension of the 7th (seventh) year through the post RU547669255IN dt. 05.09.2024. Please provide the following information pertaining to the same: 2.1 Its FTS no. and the file movement status from 09.09.2024 till date; 2.2 Certified copy of the file noting pertaining to his extension application letter dt. 05.09.2024; and Page 4 of 15 2.3 Certified copy of the correspondence pertaining to his extension application letter dt. 05.09.2024;
2.4 Certified copy of any related records.
3. In her letter dt. 09.09.2024 addressed to the applicant, the Head of the Department of Art History & Art Appreciation ("Head") had told him that the extension for the 7th (seventh) year would be given by the DRC (refer to ANNEXUREB), and then on 09.10.2024, i.e., after a month from her previous letter, she told the applicant that his extension application requires the permission of the Vice-chancellor of this public authority (refer to ANNEXURE - C). And then on 22.10.2024, the Head told the applicant that his extension application dt. 05.09.2024 is still pending with the Office of the Vice-chancellor for past few weeks (refer to ANNEXURE - D).
Therefore, please inform which version of the M.Phil./Ph.D. Ordinance is being followed by this public authority in the case of this applicant with respect to his application for an extension of the 7th (seventh) year. Also provide the copy of the applied/referred Ordinance.
4.Refer to the Head's letter to this applicant dt. 09.09.2024 (ANNEXURE - B), and provide the extract(s) of the clause from the referred Ordinance that authorizes the DRC to provide an extension of six (6) months.
5. The applicant, on 20.08.2024 through the post RU032099085IN, had submitted his final draft thesis to his supervisor, Prof. Bindulika Sharma, for her detailed assessment of the same.
Please provide the certified copy of that assessment report by his research supervisor.
6. In the DRC meeting held on 01.07.2024 in the Office of the Dean, Faculty of Fine Arts of this public authority, this applicant had submitted the prescribed Annexure - II (Format for submission of Six-Monthly Progress Report) along with his progress report for period pertaining to 11.12.2023-10.06.2024. Please provide the certified copy of the Annexure - II of this applicant consisting the remarks of supervisor and RAC members and the recommendations of DRC on his research work for the abovementioned period.
7.Following his six-monthly progress' presentation in the DRC meeting held on 01.07.2024, this applicant, on 02.07.2024, had emailed the copy of his six-monthly progress report of December 2023-June 2024 period Page 5 of 15 seeking advices/remarks/suggestions on his work, to the following members present in the DRC meeting dt. 01.07.2024:
7.1 Prof. Bindulika Sharma, this applicant's supervisor, and the Head of Department of Art History & Art Appreciation, and the Dean, Faculty of Fine Arts, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi;
7.2 Prof. Kahkashan Y. Danyal, DRC member, and the Dean, Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi;
7.3 Dr. Saba Mahmood Bashir, DRC member, and Assistant Professor, Department of English, Faculty of Humanities and Languages, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi;
7.4 Prof. Biswajit Das, DRC member, and Professor, Centre for Culture Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi; 7.5 Dr. Atul Sinha, DRC member, and Assistant Professor, AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi; and 7.6 Prof. Jyotsana Tiwari, external DRC member, and Head, Department of Education in Arts & Aesthetics, National Council for Educational Research & Training (NCERT), New Delhi.
Please provide the certified copy of the advices/remarks/suggestions by each one of the abovementioned DRC members advanced in response to this applicant's email dt. 02.07.2024."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 19.11.2024 stating as under:
1.1 Certified copy attached 1.2 The said notification is available on Jamia's website.
https://jmi.ac.in/upload/advertisement/ontification_ordinance_ac_9_20 17october13.pdf all details are already Jamia's website please see, 1.3 Certified copy attached 1.4 Certified copy attached 1.5 Certified copy attached 1.6 The information is inaccessible 1.7 The information is inaccessible 1.8 The information is inaccessible 2.1 Certified copy attached 2.2 Certified copy attached 2.3 Certified copy attached 2.4 Certified copy attached Page 6 of 15
3.Please see link https://jmi.ac.in/upload/advertisement/notification_ordinance_ac_9_20 17october13.pdf
4. Please see 1.2
5. The duly submitted final draft thesis, was evaluated and assessed satisfactorily. The compilations are upto the mark. Hence the thesis should be urgently proceeded for further Pre-Ph.d viva presentation physically.
6. Certified copy attached
7. Certified copy attached
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.12.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 14.01.2025, stating as under-
"1. The appellant, Anand Kumar Singh, ************, Lucknow has filed the aforesaid Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. The appellant vide RTI reg. JAMIS/R/E/24/00489 dated 26/10/2024 had sought detailed information of his own matter.
3. As per the current appeal, the applicant is not satisfied with the information given by the CPIO (Exams) and the applicant preferred to file 1st Appeal before the undersigned. In this context, the undersigned had fixed a Hearing on 7th January, 2025 at 11.00 am in the office of the Controller of Examinations. The Appellant did not attend the said meeting. The attendance and the minutes of the Hearing are attached herewith.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, if the applicant is not satisfied, he may appeal to the higher authority."
8. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant/Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and the Complaint.
(5) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/618766 (6) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/601417 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/ Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.11.2024 CPIO replied on : 26.12.2024 First appeal filed on : 30.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.01.2025 Page 7 of 15 2nd Appeal dated : 24.04.2025 Information sought:
9. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. This applicant was a UGC-NET-JRF/SRF at this public authority between 17.09.2018 and 16.09.2023, with the Student ID - 2931/(NET- JULY2016), and the Beneficiary Code/Flag - BININ01370689A. Pertaining to the same, please provide the following information:
1.1 Certified copy of printout of the latest and complete fellowship data/status of this applicant on the UGC-Canara Bank Scholarship and Fellowship Management Portal (SFMP) under access of the concerned Maker and Checker of this public authority.
1.2 Certified copy of any related records.
2. Refer to ANNEXURE A (Student/FAO/2024/801210/28.02.2024 dt. February 28, 2024), and provide the following information: 2.1 Certified copy of all the mentioned twenty-four (24) HRA bills pertaining to this applicant so returned by the concerned Assistant Finance Officer to the Head of the Department of the Art History & Art Appreciation.
2.2 Certified copy of the file noting and correspondence pertaining to the same.
2.3 Certified copy of any related records".
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 26.12.2024 stating as under:
"Point No.- 1 (1.1) & (1.2):
The latest and complete fellowship data/status of the applicant is available on UGC-Scholar Portal. The applicant may approach to the UGC in case of any further clarification is required by him in this regard. Point No.-2 (2.1 to 2.3):
This pertains to the Head of the Department, D/o of Art & Art Appreciation, F/o Fine Arts, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi - 110 025."
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.01.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 8 of 1512. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant/Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and the Complaint.
(7) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/130622 (8) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/130630 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.03.2025 CPIO replied on : 28.04.2025, 07.05.2025 First appeal filed on : 06.05.2025 First Appellate Authority's order : NA 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.09.2025 Information sought:
13. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2025 seeking the following information:
"On 10.02.2025, I, Anand Kumar Singh (hereinafter "the applicant") had sent a complaint-letter to the Vice-chancellor of this public authority vide Registered Post no. RU157429421IN.
Please provide the following information as certified photocopies/printouts, on the postal address given below, within 30 days as prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005:
1. The date on which the aforementioned complaint was received by the Office of the Vice-chancellor;
2. The name(s) and designation(s) of the official(s)/employee(s) of this public authority who dealt with this applicant's complaint dt. 10.02.2025;
3. The certified copy of complete file, including the action taken report on this applicant's complaint dt. 10.02.2025;
4. The certified copies of complete correspondence done by the Office of the Vice-chancellor with other departments of this public authority, on this applicant's complaint dt. 10.02.2025;/
5. The concerned FTS no. allocated to this applicant's complaint dt. 10.02.2025, along with the certified copy of file movement from the date of receiving of the complaint, up to the present; :
6. The certified copy of the complete file noting pertaining to this applicant's complaint dt. 10.02.2025; and
7. The status of this applicant's complaint dt. 10.02.2025, as on date."
14. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 28.04.2025 stating as under:
Page 9 of 15"In reference to the above, this is to inform that your RTI application is under process with the concerned DPIO, Secretary to VC and appropriate response as permissible under the RTI Act will be communicated once a reply is received."
15. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.05.2025. The FAA order is not on record.
16. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished final reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 07.05.2025 stating as under -
Point No. 01: 13.02.2025 Point No. 02: Required information is denied under 8 (1) (e) under RTI act Point No. 03: Not pertains to this office.
Point No. 04: Copy of correspondence is attached Point No. 05: FTS No. and copy of file movement is attached. Point No. 06: Required information is denied under 8 (1) (e) under RTI act Point No. 07: Reply is under process.
17. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant/Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and Complaint.
(9) CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/639974 (10) CIC/JAMIS/C/2025/639980 Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17.03.2025 CPIO replied on : 15.04.2025 First appeal filed on : 02.05.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 30.05.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
18. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2025 seeking the following information:
"I, Anand Kumar Singh (hereinafter "the applicant"), was a UGC-J/SRF at this public authority between 17.09.2018 and 16.09.2023. Kindly be pleased to provide the following information within 30 days as prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005:Page 10 of 15
1. Kindly provide the certified copy of complete files pertaining to the File ID/ FTS nos. 741697, 776155, and 801210, respectively, including the complete file noting, complete correspondence done by the concerned departments of this public authority, and their respective file movements for the period since 24.07.2024 up to the present;
2. Kindly provide the certified copy of complete file pertaining to the File ID/FTS no. 845205, including the following certified records: 2.1. The complete file noting:
2.2. The complete correspondence done by the concerned departments of this public authority i.e., the Department of Art History & Art Appreciation, the Office of Dean of Fine Arts Faculty, the Office of the Vice-chancellor, the Academic Section of the Registrar's Secretariat, etc., for the period since 09.09.2024 up to the present; 2.3. The complete file movements for the period since 16.10.2024 up to the present;
2.4. Kindly provide the name(s) and designation(s) of the official(s)/employee(s) of this public authority who dealt with file pertaining to the File ID/FTS no. 845205 since 09.09.2024 up to the present;
2.5. Kindly provide the status of the file pertaining to File ID/FTS no.
845205 as on date."
19. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 15.04.2025 stating as under:
"In reference to the above, this is to inform that your RTI application is under process with Finance Officer and Dean- F/o Fine Arts and appropriate response as permissible under the RTI Act will be communicated once a reply is received."
20. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 02.05.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 30.05.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
21. The CPIO furnished a revised reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 13.05.2025 stating as under -
"The applicant has sought a number of information including file noting, complete correspondence and file movements for various file ID/FTS No.
(s) 741697, 776155 and 801210, under Point No. 1 of the RTI Act referred above. In this regard, the applicant is advised to visit Student Section, Page 11 of 15 Finance & Accounts Office to see the files available, under prior intimation.
The applicant has sought again a number of information including file noting etc., Including correspondence done by various Departments/Officers, under Point No. 2.1. to 2.5 pertaining to FTS No. 845205. This information may be available with concerned Departments/Officers, and same is not available with the Students Section, Finance & Accounts Office."
22. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant/Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and the Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Shri Anand Kumar Singh present through video conference.
Respondent: Ms. Shabana Mehfuz, Professor-cum- Nodal CPIO along with Dr. Amina, Asst. Professor-cum-CPIO, Dr. M. Kulkarni, Asst. Professor-cum-HOD, Dept. of AHAA, Shri Ayazuddin, Asst. Registrar (Acad.), Shri Mushir Ahmad, AFO (P)-cum-DPIO, AFO, Ms./Shri Merat Ahmad, Planning Asst. and Shri Danish Ahmad, UDC, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi appeared in person.
23. Written statement filed by the Appellant/Complainant as well as by the CPIO in each of the instant matters are taken on record.
24. The CPIO stated that the Appellant/Complainant has filed multiple RTI applications seeking similar information on the core issue regarding cancellation of 7th year extension of his PhD by the competent authorities. In this regard, the Appellant/Complainant has also filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is sub-judice and where Jamia Millia Islamia is arrayed as one of the Respondents. CPIO submitted that even otherwise, all the RTI applications of the Appellant/Complainant has been duly replied to on every occasion in the first instance and further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the CIC, a revised point-wise reply along with relevant admissible permissible information has been parted with the Appellant/Complainant, a copy of which is duly enclosed in the written statements of the CPIO. CPIO further apprised the Commission that on the points of RTI applications in question where information sought are voluminous in nature, an opportunity Page 12 of 15 of inspection of relevant records pertaining to information sought was also afforded to the Appellant/Complainant subject to prior appointment, however, no response to that end has been received from the Appellant/Complainant as such. CPIO stated that if the Appellant/Complainant is still not satisfied, she agreed to reiterate their offer of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant/Complainant on a mutual convenient date and time.
25. The Appellant/Complainant at the outset giving reference to query No. 1 of RTI application in question in File No. CIC/JAMIS/A/2025/138734 stated that complete file noting pertaining to letter F. No. AS-27/RO/JMI/2025/Fts No. 845205 dated 16.06.2025 regarding non-approval of his 7th year extension of Ph.D. on the ground that information sought is voluminous in nature. It was the plea of the Appellant that information cannot be denied on the ground of it being voluminous in nature in the light of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled IIFT v. Kamaljit Chibber, WP (C) No. 2830/2016 dated 26.04.2024. Appellant/ Complainant prayed the Commission to intervene in the matters. Further, the Appellant/ Complainant agreed to avail the opportunity of inspection of relevant records pertaining to information sought in the RTI applications under reference on a mutually agreed date and time.
Decision:
26. Heard the parties.
27. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and on looking into the materials of the instant Appeals/Complaints on record, the Commission observed that although the Appellant/Complainant has filed numerous RTI application with overlapping voluminous nature of information sought, however, as per the version of the Appellant/Complainant that emerged during hearing, the issue pertaining to subject matter of information sought regarding non-extension of his PhD 7th year by competent authority of Jamia Millia Islamia is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 4158/2022, it is better recourse for the Appellant/Complainant to wait for the final verdict of the Court.
28. Nonetheless, the initial reply and revised reply furnished by the CPIO vide written statement dated 22.04.2026 in each of the instant matters is majorly covering the aspect of information sought by the Page 13 of 15 Appellant/Complainant through instant RTI applications, by giving details of available permissible information provided to the Appellant/Complainant on various occasion with complete details and reference of correspondence forwarded to the Appellant, as incorporated in the revised reply. The revised replies of the CPIO are found to be in accordance with the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. A copy of the written statement with revised reply has been marked to the Appellant/Complainant, receipt of which was also affirmed by the Complainant/Appellant. In addition to it, during the course of hearing, the CPIO stated that if the Appellant/Complainant is not satisfied with the response, CPIO will afford one more opportunity of inspection of relevant records pertaining to information sought to the Appellant/Complainant on a mutually agreed date and time to which the Appellant/Complainant volunteers to avail.
29. There is no mala fide denial of information and/or unlawful obstruction of information caused by the CPIO in the instant matters which calls for any action from the Commission under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant Complaints filed by the Appellant/ Complainant as such.
30. However, in the light of discussion held with the parties in the hearing, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Nodal CPIO to facilitate one more opportunity of inspection of relevant records in response to instant RTI applications to the Appellant/Complainant, on a mutually convenient date and time within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant/Complainant, the Respondent/Nodal CPIO should supply him a list of files connected with the query raised in the RTI applications under reference by giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant/Complainant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be informed to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant/Complainant be provided upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. Information which are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005.
31. The above-mentioned directions be complied by the CPIO within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this Page 14 of 15 effect be also uploaded on the CIC's portal through the link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add. The instant Second Appeals and the Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri ANAND KUMAR SINGH Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)