Central Information Commission
Rajnish Ratnakar vs Central Information Commission on 25 July, 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. . (As Per Annexure)
Rajnish Ratnakar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Information
Commission, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
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. 658048 01.09.2024 19.09.2024 27.09.2024 23.10.2024 Nil
&
27.09.2024
2. 658013 06.11.2024 02.12.2024 08.12.2024 23.12.2024 Nil
3. 657285 05.11.2024 12.11.2024 19.11.2024 20.11.2024 Nil
4. 657427 05.11.2024 02.12.2024 08.12.2024 23.12.2024 Nil
5. 657228 25.10.2024 12.11.2024 18.11.2024 20.11.2024 Nil
6. 657367 06.11.2024 03.12.2024 04.12.2024 23.12.2024 Nil
7. 657330 10.11.2024 12.11.2024 18.11.2024 20.11.2024 Nil
8. 657122 23.09.2024 14.10.2024 07.11.2024 08.11.2024 Nil
9. 649475 18.09.2024 01.10.2024 04.10.2024 18.10.2024 Nil
10. 649611 29.10.2024 04.11.2024 06.11.2024 08.11.2024 Nil
11. 649603 29.10.2024 04.11.2024 05.11.2024 08.11.2024 Nil
12. 649337 19.07.2024 08.08.2024 22.08.2024 17.09.2024 Nil
Page 1 of 36
13. 648636 20.09.2024 01.10.2024 03.10.2024 25.10.2024 Nil
14. 647349 22.08.2024 02.09.2024 02.09.2024 20.09.2024 Nil
15. 646996 31.07.2024 27.08.2024 31.08.2024 23.09.2024 Nil
16. 645425 30.08.2024 19.09.2024 19.09.2024 04.10.2024 Nil
17. 644743 21.08.2024 02.09.2024 02.09.2024 20.09.2024 Nil
18. 644436 09.08.2024 28.08.2024 29.08.2024 20.09.2024 Nil
Note: The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar nature of second appeal grounds and also premised on inter connected
grievances.
Date of Hearing: 23.07.2025
Date of Decision: 25.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/658048
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Brief facts behind filing of this RTI application before the public authority of CIC:
(1) that it has been informed to me by the public authority of CIC through its CPIO Shri Kumar Kumar on 9/10/23 at point number 4 of my RTI application that hearing of second appeal /complaint before CIC is done on the basic of first come and first served basis.
(2) now I have noticed that CIC has decided filed number:
CIC/MOTXT/A/2023/145601 which has been filed before CIC on 7/11/2023.Page 2 of 36
(3) that I had filed two more second appeal / complaint before CIC on 21/10/2023.
I am writing details of both these second appeal / complaint here for your ready reference: (a) CIC/MOWCD/A/2023/649472 dated 21/10/2023
(b) CIC/MOWCD/A/2023/649463 dated 21/10/2023 (4) that both these second appeal / complaint filed by me earlier from file number:
CIC/MOTXT/A/2023/145601 has been unheard and not listed by the CIC for hearing yet by the CIC. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005:
1. Whether public authority of CIC has provided me false and misleading information through their CPIO Shri Subodh Kumar on 9/10/2023 or not at point number 4 of my RTI application or not.
2. Whether providing false document by any public servant is punishable offence under Bhartiy Nyay Sanhita 2023 or not.
3. If providing false document by any public servant is punishable offence, then appointing authority of public authority of CIC has taken initiative to lodge / register first information report against guilty public servant yet or not." 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.09.2024 & 27.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Reply dated 19.09.2024 "Point No. 1 & 2: You may refer to RTI Act, 2005 which is already available in public domain as well as CIC's website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf. No other information is available on records."
Reply dated 27.09.2024 Point No. 3: No such information is available.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Page 3 of 36 Appeal dated 27.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 23.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/658013
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Kindly provide me information whether same service rules are applicable on consultants working in CIC or it is entirely different from service rules applicable on permanent employee working in CIC.
2. Kindly provide me information that service rules of consultant working in CIC has been proactively disclosed by CIC or not and if has not been proactively disclosed than kindly provide me its copy also
3. Whether CIC has proactively disclosed the policy and guidelines framed of designating consultant also as CPIO under sub section 1 and 2 of section 5 of RTI act 2005 or not and if it has not been proactively disclosed then kindly provide me its Copy also."
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 1: Service rule in respect of Consultants working in CIC are governed as per DOE OM 3-25/2020-E.IIIA, dated 9th December 2020.
Point No. 2 &3: Service rules of consultants is mentioned in the advertisement circular and the same is also uploaded on Commission's website on following link:- https://cic.gov.in/all-recruitment As far as nomination of Consultants as CPIO is concerned, they are nominated as per provision of RTI Act, 2005."Page 4 of 36
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2024. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657285
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"It has been noticed while inspecting this annexed decisions of CIC dated 1 nov 2024 in the matter of Parminder Singh versus PIO DGHS Delhi that CPIO has violated section 7 and provided incomplete information to applicant after 144 days and after one year of reply before time of final hearing remaining information was provided by the CPIO which is gross misconduct and proven case of violation of section 7 of RTI act. That with the consent of appellant the offence was compounded by CIC. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005 to ascertain whether RTI act 2005 is becoming dead letters due to CIC itself in this nation or not
1. Kindly provide me information whether offence of violation of section 7 of RTI act 2005 is a compoundable offence
2. Kindly provide me compounding rules. Or guidelines or policies framed by CIC which has empowered the information commissioner to compound this offence of section 7 of erring CPIO of DGHS Delhi"
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The Right to Information Act, 2005, The Right to Information Rules, 2012, the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 and Circulars issued Page 5 of 36 by the Commission on various subjects are available in the public domain for the benefit/view/reference of general public and the same can be consulted. It has been held by Hon'ble CIC in the matter of K. Lal Vs M.K. Bagri (File No. CIC/AT A/2007/00112) that under the RTI Act, 2005, the public authority is not required to provide copies of those documents which were available in the public domain."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657427
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Sub section b ii of section 4 of RTI act 2005 provides the power and duties of its officers and employees and sub section 3 of section 6 of RTI act 2005 provides request for obtaining information which is held by another public authority. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005
1. Kindly provide me information whether CIC has proactively disclosed the powers and duties of its CPIO of RTI CELL or not and if it has not been disclosed yet then kindly provide me certified copy of power and duty of CPIO of RTI Cell of CIC
2. Kindly provide me information whether CPIO of RTI Cell of CIC can avail facility of provisions of sub section 3 of section 6 of RTI act 2005 when all the information is available with public authority of CIC only
3. Kindly provide me information that which public servant of CIC is responsible to comply the guidelines framed by DOPT goi that every RTI application and its Page 6 of 36 replies as well as first appeal application and its replies shall be uploaded on web portal of public authority
4. Kindly provide me information that what is the maximum time limit fixed by CIC to upload these RTI application and its replies and first appeal application and its replies on CIC web portal."
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Presently E-mail ID of the RTI Cell is not operational. E-mail dated 04.11.204 of Shri Rajnish Ratnakar has been received on the E-mail ID of DR to CR-1 which has been replied by DR to CR-1.
Further, you are asking for clarification/query which is not covered under definition of information mentioned in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 for details you may go through the RTI Act, 2005 which is already available in public domain as well as CIC's website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act English.pdf. No other information is available on record."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2024. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657228
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Kindly provide me RTI reference number of all three annexed second appeal and complaint which has been listed for hearing on 21st November 2023 in CIC Page 7 of 36
2. Kindly provide me first appeal reference number of all these three annexed second appeal and complaint which has been fixed for hearing on 21st Nov 2024 before CIC
3. Kindly provide me certified copy of second appeal to enable me in filing written submissions before seven days of date of hearing in the interest of justice
4. Kindly provide me reasons under sub section 1d of section 4 of RTI act 2005 for not mentioning the RTI application reference number and first appeal reference number also on the notice of hearing sent to me by the CIC." 5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Points 1,2&3: The Right to Information Act, 2005, The Right to Information Rules, 2012, the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 and Circulars issued by the Commission on various subjects are available in the public domain for the benefit/view/reference of general public. It has been held by Hon'ble CIC in the matter of K. Lai Vs M.Κ. Bagri (File No. CIC/AT A/2007/00112) that under the RTI Act, 2005, the public authority is not required to provide copies of those documents which were available in the public domain.
With regard to communication emanated from you and form part of the file, the following is mentioned, Extract of the Madras High Court order in writ petition no 26781 of 2023 between CIC Vs B. Bharathi the court held that "Wherein it was observed that: "24. we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be Page 8 of 36 brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect."
Point4:-No such information is available in our records."
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.11.2024 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 Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657367
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"That DOPT GOI has issued guidelines for every public authority on. 7th October 2016 regarding uploading of RTI replies on the respective websites of ministries and departments. Now kindly provide me information under RTI Act 2005
1. Kindly provide me information that CIC has assigned this duty to which public servant to obey the direction of law of RTI act 2005 framed by DOPT of GOI.
2. Kindly provide me information that during last one year this direction of law has been disobeyed by the concerned public servant by not uploading these essential documents properly of web portal of CIC
3. Kindly provide me reasons why all pdf files related with first appeal documents and appeal orders have been updated on web portal of CIC by concerned public servant
4. That disciplinary proceedings have been initiated or not against the erring public servant who disobeyed direction of law of RTI act 2005 to make RTI act dead letter in this nation and to promote corruption prevalent In CIC itself and to ultimately killing the democracy in entire nation."Page 9 of 36
6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "MR Section
2. Reply of the RTI application of Central Information Commission is available on the link of the Commission's website https://cic.gov.in/rti-reply
3. you are asking for clarification/query which is not covered under definition of information mentioned in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 for details you may go through the RTI Act, 2005 which is already available in public domain as well as CIC's website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act English.pdf. No other information is available on record.
4. No such information is available on record."
6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2024. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657330
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"It has been noticed while reading this judgement passed by chief information commissioner Shri Herra Lal Samariya that he is making RTI act 2005 by illegally exonerating the erring CPIO from the ambit of section 20 of RTI act 2005 when it has been already established that CPIO of sail has violated section 7 of act 2005 and issued are not framed by CIC in any second appeal under order xiv of civil procedure code 1908 while deciding any second appeals or complaint filed before CIC now kindly provide me information from all presently working chief Page 10 of 36 information commissioner and information commissioner by taking assistance of sub section 4 of section 5 of RTI act 2005.
1. Where all these quasi judicial officers decides or not that information are held under the control of public authority under section 2f properly or not
2. Whether all these judges decide or not that there is delay of how many days in providing the information by the CPIO by violating section 7 of RTI act 2005
3. That when information is delayed under section 7 than these judges penalize all erring CPIO by invoking section 20 of RTI act 2005 properly in each and every cases of violation or not
4. That these judges have knowledge of supreme court judgement given in Namit Sharma case ot not that judges not having knowledge of law cannot decide question of list involved in any second appeal or complaint filed before CIC
5. Kindly provide me details that these judges have illegally decided how many second appeal and complaints till now in which question of law was to be decided by CIC."
7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought is not covered under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the CPIO is not obliged to give clarification or confirmation on any point of information."
7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
7.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 11 of 36Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A//2024/657122
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Point no. 2, 3, 4 & 5 are pertains to Dak Section.
Sec 2h of RTI act provides right to information accessible under this act which is under the control of any public authority and section 4 ix provide a directory of its officers and employees and directory includes official email id also Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005
1. whether email id of information commissioner and central chief information commissioner of CIC are uploaded on official website of CIC or not and if it has been uploaded after receiving of this application than kindly provide be date also when it has been uploaded by CIC
2. Whether annexed mail dated 22nd Aug 2024 sent by me to chief information commissioner of CIC has been received or not in which I have complaint that uploaded judgement of Aanandi Ramalingam dated 1st Aug 2024 has been removed from official website of CIC and also provided him screenshot image of uploaded decision of 31st July and 2nd July were uploaded on official website and requested him to conduct enquiry
3. That information regarding damaging or corrupting of uploaded decisions of Anandi Ramalingam dated 1st Aug 2024 is under the control of Public authority of CIC or not
4. That denying me information by public authority of CIC about damaging and corrupting uploaded decisions which is under the control of CIC amounts to dereliction of official duty and disobedience of law of RTI act 2005 or not which is gross misconduct of CPIO and FAA of CIC which is a public servant and for this Page 12 of 36 gross misconduct these public servants can be prosecuted under appropriate sections of bhartiya nyay sanhita 2023
5. If information regarding damage of uploaded decision is under the control of public authority of CIC then FAA has provided me false and incorrect annexed document or not"
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 2: Yes, mail dated 22.08.2024, sent by you received in CIC.
Point No. 3, 4 & 5: Requested information does not cover under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005."
8.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2024 observed that the reply provided by the CPIO is not as per RTI Act and directed the CPIO to revisit the matter and provide complete appropriate information within 10 days of receipt of this order. 8.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649475
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Whether procedure of uploading of 2nd appeal /complaint/ written submissions are followed by CIC as every RTI application, its reply, first appeal, its reply is uploaded on the Online RTI portal / website of DOP&T. If it is not followed by CIC, then give me its reasons also.
2. Whether issues have been framed by CIC after serving notice to public authorities before finally deciding /disposing the second appeal /complaint or not Page 13 of 36
3. How many cases of second appeal / complaints are disposed by the CIC on the first date of hearing every year by the CIC."
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 1: You are asking for clarification/query which is not covered under definition of information mentioned in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 for details you may go through the RTI Act, 2005 which is already available in public domain as well as CIC's website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf. No other information is available on record.
Point No. 2 & 3: Information received on 20.09.2024 from Shri S. K. Chitkara, CPIO & DR to CIC(HS) under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX
- 1 stating as under:
'Points 2 Information sought is in the form of a query. As such, the same is not covered under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point 3 No separate record is available regarding second appeals/complaints which are disposed off on first date of hearing every year.' Information received on 25.09.2024 from Col. S. S. Chhikara (Retd), CPIO & DR to IC(AR) under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX - 2 stating as under:
'Point No. 2 - The query asked is not specific/not understanding. Hence cannot be Point No. 3- The sought information is available in public domain.' Information received on 30.09.2024 from Shri S. Anantharaman, CPIO & DR to IC(VT) under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX-3 stating as under:Page 14 of 36
'Point 2: Written submission filed by the appellant and respondent in response to notice of hearing served, is considered and the Commission pass final decision on the second appeal.
Point 3:No such information is available.' 9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 18.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
9.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649611
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"While Inspecting the work of CIC by reading the uploaded decisions , it has been noticed that hon'ble Chief Central Information Commissioner ,Shri Heera Lal Sanwariya has passed defective and erroneous order / decision in the matter of Shri Ashok Kumar versus CPIO ESIC Faridabad Haryana and Others (CIC/ESICO/A/2023/142315) on 25/10/2024 and date of hearing was also 25/10/2024 BRIEF FACTS OF FILING OF THIS RTI APPLICATION That it has been admitted by CPIO ESIC FARIDABAD itself vide written submission dated 27/09/2024 that only part information was provided by him to the applicant on 21/07/2023 and remaining information regarding names of insured persons of covered establishment are being provided to applicant shortly which is explicit that CPIO has violated section 7 (1) of RTI ACT 2005 and unduly delayed by denying the information to applicant for more than fourteen months that is delay of 415 days . That RTI acts mandate that CPIO shall provide information within 35 days from receipt of RTI application and there is provisions of fine of rupees Page 15 of 36 250 per day up to maximum amount of rupees 25000 and this fine shall be imposed on violators CPIO if he has delayed information for only hundred days after the time limit of 30 -35 days after receiving the RTI application....
1. Kindly provide me details of all five points information which was seek by the applicant Ashok Kumar from public authority on 01/07/2023
2. Kindly provide me date when CPIO ESIC FARIDABAD provided applicant names of insured person to applicant
3. Kindly provide me copy of first appeal order passed by FAA ESIC FARIBAD against this RTI reply
4. whether information regarding names of insured persons under ESI ACT 1952 of any covered establishment to ascertain whether principal employer is depositing ESI contributions of all covered employees properly or not comes under purview of section 8 of RTI act 2005
5. That Hon'ble CIC sir have noticed all these violations of section 7(1) and 19(6) at the time of date of hearing and the time of deciding this second appeal or not? If he has noticed all these violations then why he has not invoked section 20 of RTI ACT 2005 to save the RTI ACT 2005 BECOMING DEAD LETTERS IN THIS NATION."
10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"You are not a party in this case. As such, information sought is denied under section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 16 of 3610.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649603
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"While going through the uploaded judgement of second appeal decisions dated 25th oct 2024 it has been noticed by me that chief central information commissioner Shri Heera Lal Sawariya sir has not penalized the CPIO under section 20 of RTI act 2005 in the matter of Sanjeev Sehgal versus ESIC, now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005
1. Whether it has been noticed or not that CPIO has violated section 7 and FAA has issued directions to CPIO to provide revised information on 9th Aug 2023
2. That it has been noticed or not that despite the directions of FAA CPIO has provided revised information to appellant on 23rd Sep 2024 that is after one years and after 365 days after receiving the directions of FAA
3. Now kindly provide me information under sub section 1c of section 4 of RTI act 2005 that how CPIO can be exonerated for such gross misconduct and abuse of power of violation of section 7 of RTI act 2005 by CIC without invoking provisions of section 20 of RTI act 2005 which will make RTI act 2005 dead letters in entire nation."
11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"You are not a party in this case. As such, information sought is denied under section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
11.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Page 17 of 36 Appeal dated 05.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
11.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649337
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Whether the annexed link regarding state information commission is correct and if it is not correct regarding all states then kindly provide me correct links of those sic which are wrongly mentioned here
2. Whether initiatives have been taken by CIC to deicide the second appeal or complaint within stipulated time period or not
3. How much days are taken by CIC and all other sic in deciding second appeal or complaint after its intitution
4. Kindly provide me details that how many cases have been found in last five years where CPIO have denied or delayed or provided false and misleading information to the informant and out of those cases how many of CPIO and FAA have been fined and disciplinary actions against all these guilty CPIO and FAA have been ordered
5. Whether CIC have written letters to the central government to appoint ten information commissioners to decide the second appeal or complaint within time or not and if letters have already been written then kindly provide me its copy also"
12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-Page 18 of 36
1. "Information received from CPIO & SO, MR Section (Mrs. Soniya) under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX - 1 stating- 'Point.1 Link regarding SIC available on Central Information Commission website has been updated and are correct.'
2. As per provision of RTI Act, 2005 there is no time limit has been fixed for deciding second appeal or complaint under RTI Act, 2005.
3. No such information is available on record.
4. Information has already been provided by CPIO, I/c CR-II on 31.07.2024.
5. Information received from CPIO & SO, Admin Section (Mr. Chandan Kumar) under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX - 2 stating that no information is available."
12.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 17.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
12.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/648636
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.09.2024. seeking information on the following points:
"It has came to my knowledge that CIC has changed their procedure of hearing second appeals and complaints by providing opportunity to petitioner as well as respondent to serve copy of written submissions to any opposite party but the practical difficulty is how the respondent would came to know in absence of rti reference number or copy of second copy that what written submissions shall be given to the petitioner. That similar difficulty with petitioner is that how would they serve written submissions to respondent if email id of all respondent would not be provided by CIC because CIC changes second appeal and complaint Page 19 of 36 number and it is very difficult for petitioner also to ascertain that this file number belongs to which RTI or FA reference number.
Now kindly provide me information
1. What is the reason behind not mentioning of RTI reference number, first appeal number and email address of all parties while issuing notice of hearing to all necessary party by the CIC which is basically administrative actions
2. Kindly provide me reason why CIC does not upload copy of second appeal filed by any applicant on the official web portal of CIC which can make these public records easily accessible to public at large of this entire nation and will only bring transparency in public authority of CIC. "
13.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point no. 1 & 2: You are asking for clarification/query which is not covered under definition of information mentioned in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 for details you may go through the RTI Act, 2005 which is already available in public domain as well as CIC's website RTI-Act English.pdf.
link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/No other information is available on record."
13.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
13.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/647349
14. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 20 of 36 "While going through decision portal of CIC it has been noticed that decision of honorable IC of CIC Ms Anandi Ramlingam dated 31july 2024 and 2 august 2024 is uploaded on web portal of CIC but decisions given by her dated 1st august has been removed from the web portal and reason behind is only known to CIC itself. It is very pertinent to mention here that I have filed an RTI application few days back regarding the judgement passed by her in the matter of Kachru Lal Parihar versus union of India and reference number of my RTI application is 01184. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act
1. Whether entire decision given by her on 1st Aug 2023 has been removed from web portal or not and if it has been removed then kindly provide me its reason
2. When did copy of this decision have been provided to Shri Kachru Lal Parihar.
Kindly provide me its complete details and certified copy of the details also
3. Whether online portal of CIC through which second appeals and complaint are filed are not working and poorly working from last 4 days or not as I am trying to file few second appeals and complaint before CIC but after submission it writes admin error and restrict me from filing second appeals and complaints
4. That all land line numbers of CIC are working or there is problem in telephone lines also."
14.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The sought information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
14.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 21 of 3614.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/646996
15. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"It has been informed to me by the concerned CPIO of CIC that Brig Vipin Chakrawarti has been appointed as FAA to hear my first appeal. Honorable supreme court of India has held on 13th Nov 2012 in the matter of Namit Sharma versus union of India that FAA shall possess law degree. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005:
1. Who is the appointing authority of all CPIO and FAA in CIC
2. How many FAA are working presently in CIC and all FAA possess law degree to become FAA as per instructions/guidelines given by honorable supreme court of India in this above-mentioned judgement
3. Whether Brig Vipin Chakrawarti possess law degree or not." 15.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "CPIO & FAA in CIC are nominated as per provision given in RTI Act by Competent Authority.
2. Presently, there are 02 FAAs in the CIC. They are nominated as per provision given in RTI Act.
3. Yes."
15.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 23.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.Page 22 of 36
15.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/645425
16. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Brief facts behind filing of this RTI application under RTI act 2005 before public authority of CIC that two of my second appeals were listed before honorable Information Anandi Ramalingam on 27th of august for hearing whose file number are written below :
(a) CIC/DSELI/A/2023/645269
(b) CIC/DSELI/A/2023/648735 That I have attended hearing through audio visual mode and honorable information commissioner has herself admitted that information at point number 3 of my file number 645269 has not been provided and CPIO shall have provided me information in yes/ no mode in file number 648735.
That I have waited for three days to see the order in both these matters which has been uploaded today on the CIC portal. That all other order of hearing dated 27th august were uploaded on 28th august only. That both of my second appeal / complaint were disposed of by writing order in favour of CPIO of public authority. It has been noticed that CIC has entered wrong date of hearing of my matter and entered the date of hearing as 29th august which is wrong and illegal also. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005
1. Why wrong date of hearing (29th august 2024) has been uploaded by CIC in both these matters when actual date of hearing was 27th of august 2024
2. In how many cases listed for hearing on 27th august 2024 by honorable information commissioner, decisions /order was uploaded belatedly that is the Page 23 of 36 order was uploaded on 30th of august 2024 and what was the reason behind this inordinate delay in uploading the order
3. Whether audio conference was recorded or not and if it has been recorded, then kindly provide me its cassette
4. Whether honorable information commissioner has gone through content of my second appeal / complaint and written statement filed by me recently before hearing /deciding this case or not and seen or not that information regarding point number 3 has been provided to me by the public authority or not .whether she have seen or not that my mail was written to secretary of higher education and nodal officer has transferred it wrongly to dosel without providing me the information
5. Kindly provide me certified copy of my second appeal documents in both these matters"
16.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point 1- The date of hearing mentioned in order is 27th August 2024. Please reconcile at your end.
Point 2 - The sought information is available in public domain.
Point 3 - Audio recording is not maintained in the commission. Hence, cannot be provided.
Point 4 - The sought information is clarification in nature. Hence, cannot be provided.
Point 5 - Refer to High Court, Madras vs. Central Information Commission, writ Petition No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information Page 24 of 36 available within the knowledge of the petitioner on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In the above said judgement, the sought information cannot be furnished."
16.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
16.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/644743
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"It has been noticed while going through the annexed pdf that this second appeal has been disposed off without complying section 20 of RTI act 2005 properly by the CIC. That legislature have used word shall in both sub section 1 and 2 of section 20 and it has also been clearly mentioned in this section that both these sub sections must be invoked in both second appeal or complaint matter. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005
1. Whether CIC or SIC shall dispose off second appeal or complaint without complying section 20 of RTI act properly or not
2. Whether CIC can invoke only fine provision or recommend disciplinary proceedings or CIC has to invoke both subsection 1 and 2 of section 20 if guilt of section 7 by CPIO has been already proved Page 25 of 36
3. According to definition clause of RTI act 2005 FAA is also senior rank CPIO or not and if FAA is not senior ranked CPIO then CIC or sic can impose penalty or fine and recommend disciplinary action against him according to RTI act 2005 or not."
17.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The sought information does not fall under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence cannot be provided."
17.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
17.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/644436
18. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Annexed pdf file which is section 20 of RTI act 2005 is annexed here for ready reference. Now kindly provide me information under RTI act 2005
1. Whether central chief information commissioner or information commissioner have to take cognizance under both part 1 and 2 of section 20 of RTI act 2005 against the CPIO if they are of opinion that unreasonable delay has been made by CPIO in providing the information to the informant or they can use this section upon their discretion and take cognizance under only one part or sub section of section 20
2. Kindly provide me details of one year about total number of cognizance taken by CIC under section 20 and also provide me details that in how many cases penalty Page 26 of 36 has been imposed under both subsection section 1 and 2 of section 20 of RTI act 2005
3. Kindly provide me details also that out of total cases of taking cognizance under section 20 in how many cases penalty has been imposed separately under sub section 1 or sub section 2 against the CPIO in last one year." 18.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Information sought is not maintained in the form as desired by the appellant. However, year-wise information regarding penalty imposed and recovered is available in annual reports of CIC. The link for which is https://cic.gov.in/reports/37."
18.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
18.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
19. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Suman Bala, DS & CPIO (RTI Cell); Chandan Kumar, SO (Admn.) & CPIO; Soniya, SO (MR) & CPIO; Pawan Kumar Ram, SO (CR) & CPIO; S K Chitkara, DR (CIC) & CPIO; S. Anantharaman, DR (IC-VT) & CPIO along with Om Prakash Pokhriyal, DR (IC-AR) attended the hearing in person.
20. The Commission took on record the written statement of the Appellant filed in each of these cases, respectively and notably, in one of these cases; viz. Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/648636, the Appellant has stated as under:
Page 27 of 36"In light of the systemic implications involved, the appellant humbly requests an opportunity to make oral submissions through mobile call during the hearing scheduled for 23/07/2025."
Similarly, in Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/644743, Appellant has placed on record the written statement asking for change of bench.
While, in other cases, the Appellant has only placed on record arguments on merit objecting to the replies provided by the CPIOs and deeming them as either insufficient or misleading or evasive. The Appellant has also raised objection to the manner in which the FAA has disposed of the First Appeal(s) without reasoning and for not specifying the right of appeal. In addition to these, the Appellant has raised pertinent questions emanating from the subject matter of these RTI Application(s) for instance, questioning the manner of disposal of cases by the benches; contents of the notice of hearing issued to parties; questioning the appointment of consultants as CPIOs in CIC; ensuring requisites of the appointed FAAs etc.
21. The Respondent(s) reiterated the replies that are already available on record, while some of the CPIOs invited attention of the bench towards the revised replies provided to the Appellant in pursuance of the notice of hearing, for instance in Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/644436, the earlier composite reply has been replaced by a point- wise reply which more or less conveys the same stance as that of the earlier CPIO with the addition of specifying which point is outside 2(f) of the RTI Act and for which point no data is maintained. Similarly, in Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/646996, it was added by the CPIO that- All CPIO and FAA in CIC are nominated as per provision of RTI, Act by the Competent Authority. There is no such order wherein it has been specifically mentioned regarding appointing authority of CPIOs and FAA.
Page 28 of 36(ii) It was observed from the concerned file that there is no such criteria has been fixed in the Commission regarding possessing the Law Degree to become FAA. As far as the degree of Brig Vipin Chakrawarti (Retd.) is concerned, he has been engaged in the Commission as Consultant(Registrar) and Law Degree is essential for engagement as Consultant Registrar as per eligibility criteria. However, in case of other FAA, Law Degree is not pre-requisite/essential qualification for nomination as FAA. Therefore in case of other FAA, education qualification which is not pre-requisite for appointment to the post, may be treated as personal information and cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
In Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649337, the following was supplemented by the CPIO to the original reply:
"Regarding the Point No.1 of the RTI Application CICOM/R/E/24/01019 dated 19-07-2024, M&R Section vide their earlier reply dated 23-07-2024 has already been furnished that link regarding SIC are available on CIC website are updated and correct.
Further, it is also submitted that Links of SICs has been provided for facilitation of public. These links are being reviewed based on the Archival Policy of CIC website. Further, last update of such details is reflected at the bottom right corner of the official website of the Central Information Commission."
For point no.4 of the RTI Application:
"No such information is being maintained in the Central Registry. However, all the decisions of the CIC are available in the website of the Commission. Appellants may check the same from the website of the CIC."
In Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657122, the CPIO added as under:
Page 29 of 36"Further, following is also submitted that the Emil IDs Chief information Commissioner and other Information Commissioner of CIC is available on official website having link: https://cic.gov.in/cic-profile, and the date of last update of website page can been seen at the bottom right corner of respective webpage of CIC Website."
A revised reply was also placed on record in Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657367 extrapolating the earlier reply.
Lastly, the CPIO, RTI Cell sought to highlight that the Appellant has been consistently filing RTI Application(s) which appear to them as seeking voluminous information in nature and are causing substantial diversion of resources.
22. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes at the outset that none of the replies provided by the CPIOs in the instant set of cases warrant any intervention as the information sought for in these RTI Applications do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Pertinently so, in cases where, the Appellant has vaguely or rather slyly sought for a specific information or record, the concerned CPIO has provided him with the relevant information and answers/clarifications as necessary, in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act or appropriately cited the case law relying upon which the information is not being provided. For instance in the matters where Appellant sought for copy of his own second appeal(s), the reliance placed by the concerned CPIO on the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 26781/2013 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court was appropriate.
However, in Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/647349 and in Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649603, the concerned CPIO(s) erred in quoting exemptions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act when the Appellant had not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Page 30 of 36For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page 31 of 36 Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the Page 32 of 36 domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Furthermore, it will not be out of place to advise the Appellant about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished." Emphasis Supplied The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."Page 33 of 36
9. Having observed as above, the Commission does not find any scope of relief to be ordered in these matters or take any adverse action against the CPIOs for not facilitating such clarifications/answers/information which would have been to the Appellant's satisfaction. The CPIOs are however directed to ensure that a copy of their written submissions as well as revised replies wherever placed on record in pursuance of the notice of hearing are duly sent to the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order, if not already sent.
10. The Appellant is advised that although he has raised pertinent functional issues with respect to the functioning of the CIC and its daily affairs, his cause is stifled by the absolute non-conformity of the RTI Applications to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
11. Nonetheless, as a matter of propriety, the Commission issues strict advisory to the CPIO, RTI Cell to ensure that in future, as far as feasible, where RTI Applications are squarely outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the applicants are informed so at the end of the RTI Cell itself instead of forwarding the RTI Application across all CPIOs of CIC to be informed after much ado that no information is sought as per Section 2(f).
Similarly, the CPIOs ought to pay attention that when the RTI Application(s) do not seek for any specific record as per Section 2(f), and is only expressing surmises, in such cases, exemptions of the Section 8 cannot be invoked to cause unwarranted confusion and agony to the applicants.
Further, the CPIOs are advised to ensure that the right of First Appeal is specified in their replies, particularly wherever the request for information is denied or rejected for any reasons, as prescribed in Section 7(8)(ii) & (iii) of the RTI Act.
12. With the above observations and advisory issued to both parties, the Appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Page 34 of 36Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 25.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067 2 Rajnish Ratnakar Annexure of Second Appeals Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/658048 2 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/658013 3 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657285 4 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657427 5 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657228 6 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657367 7 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657330 8 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/657122 9 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649475 10 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649611 11 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649603 12 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/649337 Page 35 of 36 13 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/648636 14 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/647349 15 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/646996 16 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/645425 17 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/644743 18 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/644436 Page 36 of 36 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)