Central Information Commission
Sourabh Kumar vs Csir-Cimfr, Dhanbad on 24 April, 2026
CIC/CMRID/C/2025/602681
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
शकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CMRID/C/2025/602681
Sourabh Kumar ... शकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: ), CSIR-Central
Institute of Mining & Fuel ... तवाद गण /Respondents
Research, Dhanbad, Jharkhand
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 12.09.2024 FA : Nil. Complaint : 15.01.2025
CPIO : 01.10.2024 FAO : 19.11.2024 Hearing : 22.04.2026
Date of Decision: 22.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Provide a copy of minutes of meetings held on 01.11.2019 in connection of Compassionate appointment.
2. Provide a copy of noting side of concern file/files deals with the recruitment of compassionate appointment.Page 1 of 6
CIC/CMRID/C/2025/602681
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point 1 & 2: -
As per Para 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005, sought information is exempted from disclosure.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 19.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 15.01.2025 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Scientist 'F'- participated in the hearing through video-conference.
5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to him. He averred that he had sought information regarding minutes of meetings held on 01.11.2019 in connection of compassionate appointment. He stated that had applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2017. However, no information regarding the appointment and consideration/non-consideration of his case has been provided by the Respondent. He stated that copy of minutes of meetings and file notings are essential for him to know the status of his application for appointment on compassionate grounds and to expose any kind of irregularity in the recruitment process.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the minutes of meetings and files contains personal information of other candidates who had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Upon being queried whether the minutes Page 2 of 6 CIC/CMRID/C/2025/602681 of meetings and files only related to the Complainant can be provided to him, the PIO during hearing assured to provide minutes of meetings and file notings only related to the Complainant within 30 days.
7. A written submission dated 27.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...In response to the notice of registration of appeal regarding the above- mentioned reference, I, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, CPIO, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad am submitting the reply as under:
1. That the RTI Application of Shri Sourabh Kumar was received on 12.09.2024.
2. That the Application was marked to Controller of Administration/Administrative Officer, CSIR-CIMFR on 13.09.2024 (copy attached) for collecting the information sought by the Appellant.
3. The reply was received from deemed CPIO Controller of Administration/Administrative Officer, CSIR-CIMFR on 01.10.2024 (copy attached) which said "As per Para 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005, sought information is exempted from disclosure".
4. That the reply was sent to the Appellant on 03.10.2024 by email (copy attached).
5. Further the first appeal of the Appellant was received on 22.10.2024 in our office.
6. That the Appellate Authority sent his reply to the Appellant on 19.11.2024 by email (copy attached).
7. That the notice of registration of appeal was marked to deemed CPIO Controller of Administration/Administrative Officer, CSIR-CIMFR on 20.02.2026 (copy attached)..."Page 3 of 6
CIC/CMRID/C/2025/602681 Decision:
8. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It further noted that during hearing the PIO assured that minutes of meetings and file notings of compassionate appointment only related to the Complainant will be provided within four weeks. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
9. Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to Page 4 of 6 CIC/CMRID/C/2025/602681 him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
10. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
11. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त) Authenticated true copy Page 5 of 6 CIC/CMRID/C/2025/602681 Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO under RTI, Chief Administrative Officer-
(RTI Section), CSIR-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research, Barwa Road Campus, Dhanbad-826015 (Jharkhand).
2 Sourabh Kumar Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)