Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar vs Csir Hqrs, New Delhi on 12 February, 2026
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/133997
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/133997
Ashok Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: CSIR-Central Road
Research Institute (M/o. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Science & Technology), New
Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.08.2024 FA : 13.09.2024 SA : 18.10.2024
CPIO : 05.09.2024 FAO : 11.10.2024 Hearing : 10.02.2026
Date of Decision: 10.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
ी/ ीमती, CRRI Staff को िमलने वाली/ ीकृत की गई Study Leave/Daputation or other NOC के संदभ म िदनांक 01/01/2018 से वतमान तक िन िल खत सूचना उपल कराने की कृपा करे ।
Page 1 of 5
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/133997
SN Date of Name & NOC NOC NOC Any other
Application Designation Requested Granted Rejected NOC existence
of Staff for /effective on
Applied for the date of
NOC application
उपरो के स भ म NOC Granted/Rejected Order की ितिलिप भी उपल कराई जाये ।
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Reply: The information requested by the applicant is not available in the format specified by him. Additionally, the request is vague and requires extraction from various extensive records, which would result in a disproportionate diversion of resources as per Section 7(9) of RTI, Act. 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.10.2024 observed as under:-
"The reply is issued with the approval of the Competent Authority. Further, with regard to clarification for reason of your queries as per RTI Act, 2005, CPIO/FAA is not supposed to give clarification/ advice/opinion/ create information, but only to provide information in any form available to the authority. If you are not satisfied with this reply, you can opt to file a second appeal under Section (3) 19of the Right to Information Act-2005, which is 90 days from the date of receipt of this communication with the Central Information Commission. The details are given below:"Page 2 of 5
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/133997
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.10.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri Rajesh Rana, CPIO, Shri Manoj Swarup Shukla, PIO, Shri Bhajan Singh- participated in the hearing.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided by the PIO. He averred that the information has been wrongly denied under Section 7(9). He stated that he restricts his request only to NOC related to study leave and deputation. Further, he provided list of employees regarding whom he seeks information namely, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Mukesh Kumar, Civil Division, Deputation NOC, Shri A.K. Jain- Deputation NOC, Smt. Neha Dhiman, Study Leave, Shri Kanwar, Deputation, Shri Satish - Deputation, Shri P.S. Prasad- Deputation, Shri Gajendra Kumar, Deputation.
6. The Respondent, while defending the case, inter alia submitted that the Appellant had sought information pertaining to the NOCs granted to all employees in a specific format. It was contended that the information sought is voluminous in nature, and extracting the relevant details from the individual personal files of all employees would require a tremendous and disproportionate effort. Accordingly, the request was denied under the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The Respondent further submitted that, if the Appellant seeks information regarding the grant of NOC to a specific individual, the relevant generic information in that regard can be provided.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the main premise of the instant Second Appeal is non-furnishing of information by the PIO.
Page 3 of 5CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/133997
8. It is noted that the Appellant during hearing restricted the scope of his RTI Application and provided a list of employees regarding whom he seeks information namely, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Mukesh Kumar, Civil Division, Deputation NOC, Shri A.K. Jain- Deputation NOC, Smt. Neha Dhiman, Study Leave, Shri Kanwar, Deputation, Shri Satish - Deputation, Shri P.S. Prasad- Deputation, Shri Gajendra Kumar, Deputation. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to examine the RTI Application afresh in light of the list of employees provided by the Appellant during hearing and furnish a revised reply within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In doing so, the PIO must ensure the complete details related to the Appellant shall be provided to him, however, as regards the other employees only generic information i.e. status of grant of NOC shall be provided. PIO shall not provide any information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and same shall be redacted as per Section 10 of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Office of the CPIO, CSIR-Central Road Research Institute (M/o. Science & Technology), Delhi-Mathura Road, New Delhi-110025.Page 4 of 5
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/133997 2 Ashok Kumar Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)