Central Information Commission
Arnav Soni vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 17 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BECIL/A/2024/650351
Arnav Soni .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : Broadcast Engineering ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Consultants India Ltd, Regional Office
(South), No. 162, 2nd Main, 1st Cross,
AGS Layout, RMV 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560094.
2. The Nodal CPIO HQ. BECIL Bhawan,
56-A/17, Block-C, Sector-62,
Noida-201301.
Date of Hearing : 17-02-2026
Date of Decision : 17-02-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23-08-2024
CPIO replied on : 20-09-2024
First appeal filed on : 25-09-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 24-10-2024
2nd Appeal dated : 13-11-2024
CIC/BECIL/A/2024/650351 Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23-08-2024 seeking the following information:
"I am applying for the photocopies of certain documents as per RTI Act of Govt. of India:
1- Photocopy of all the documents related to file PMOPG/D/2024/0124147dated 21.6.24 2- Photocopy of all the documents related to file BECIL/HR/01/Grievance/2024/1386 3- Photocopy of all documentary in the file BECIL/HR/01/Grievance/2024/1386 4- Photocopy of all Official statements recorded/taken in BECIL/HR/01/Grievance/2024/1386.
5- Photocopy of All affidavits submitted in the file BECIL/HR/01/Grievance/2024/1386.
6- Photocopy of final report in the file BECIL/HR/01/Grievance/2024/1386. I am ready to pay per page cost as per Govt of India RTI Act."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20-09-2024 stating as under:
"Reply :- Response:
1. The desired information is not available with me.
2. The desired information is not available with me.
3. The desired information is not available with me.
4. The desired information is not available with me.
5. The desired information is not available with me.
6. The desired information is not available with me."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25-09-2024. The FAA vide its order dated 24-10-2024, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
CIC/BECIL/A/2024/650351 Page 2 of 64. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Attended the hearing through audio conference. Respondent: Mr. Avnish Kumar Gupta, DGM, attended the hearing in person.
5. The Appellant stated that he sought photocopy of Official statements recorded/taken in BECIL/HR/01/Grievance/2024/1386, Photocopy of All affidavits submitted in the file BECIL/HR/01/Grievance/2024/1386 etc. The appellant also submitted that the sought statement and affidavits pertain to grievance filed by him and the respondent has not provided the same.
6. The Respondent submitted that there are multiple sections in their office and the sought information was not available with him at that time. Since, the sought information was not available with him at that time, the same was informed to the appellant vide reply dated 20.09.2024.
7. the Commission expressed displeasure to the aforesaid submission of the respondent and opined that the respondent ought to have transferred the RTI application to the CPIO concerned who is custodian of the sought information. Thereafter, the Commission queried the respondent regarding the sought statements, affidavits, final report mentioned in points no. 4 to 6. To this, the respondent submitted that there are no such statements, affidavits, final report in the file mentioned by the appellant and hence, no information is available on the said points. Thereafter, the Commission queried the respondent about documents available with respect to the grievance of the appellant mentioned in points 1 to 3. To this, the respondent submitted that there is CIC/BECIL/A/2024/650351 Page 3 of 6 complaint/grievance letter, lawyer notice sent by the appellant and a reply sent by their department.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that, during the hearing, the respondent emphatically confirmed that there are no such statements, affidavits, final report in the file mentioned by the appellant in points no. 4 to 6. Hence, the respondent is directed to file an affidavit to the Commission to that effect with a categorical statement that "no such statements, affidavits, final report sought by the RTI applicant in points no. 4 to 6 are available in the said file numbers mentioned by the appellant". The respondent shall file the aforesaid affidavit to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add and serve copy of the same to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order.
9. With reference to the copy of the complaint filed by the appellant, as also the notice sent by the appellant through his lawyer, the Commission finds that the said documents do not fall under the definition of information as defined U/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence, the respondent is not obliged to provide those copies to the appellant. In this regard, attention of the appellant is invited to order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Madras high Court in the case titled The Public Information Officer, The Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madras V. CIC & B. Bharathi, in W.P No. 26781 of 2013, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that Copy of his/her own complaint(s), application(s), appeal(s) does not fall under the ambit of "information" as CIC/BECIL/A/2024/650351 Page 4 of 6 defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced below:
"24. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, 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 treasures/valuable assets. Further, those as be documents cannot 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."
In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide only copy of their reply sent to the appellant earlier with respect to the appellant's complaints, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties (Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 17.02.2026 CIC/BECIL/A/2024/650351 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd, Regional Office (South), No. 162, 2nd Main, 1st Cross, AGS Layout, RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560094.
2. The Nodal CPIO, HQ. BECIL Bhawan, 56-A/17, Block-C, Sector-62, Noida-201301.
2. The FAA, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd, Regional Office (South), No. 162, 2nd Main, 1st Cross, AGS Layout, RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560094.
3. Arnav Soni CIC/BECIL/A/2024/650351 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)