Central Information Commission
Brijesh vs Irrigation And Flood Control ... on 13 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IAFCD/A/2024/628039
Brijesh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Irrigation & Flood Control
Department,
GNCTD ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.02.2024 FA : 18.03.2024 SA : 30.06.2024
CPIO : 10.04.2024 FAO : 22.05.2024 Hearing : 02.02.2026
Date of Decision: 04.02.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.02.2024, before the CPIO, Irrigation & Flood Control Department, GNCTD, seeking information as under:
"1. Please provide the details of action taken against NSP Patwal as per CIC order no. CIC/IAFCD/A/2022/653292-UM dated 18.08.2023.
2. Please provide copy of supporting documents for above S.No-01 like copy of memo, letters, D&AR Proceedings or any other document etc. Page 1 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/IAFCD/A/2024/628039
3. Please provide current status of D&AR Proceedings or any other action taken by the department against NSP Patwal for violation of provisions of RTI Act as mentioned in CIC order.
4. Please provide the current status of fee refund of Rs 3500 charged from the Appellant as per CIC Order."
2. Having not received a reply to the RTI Application, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2024, before the FAA & SE: FC-III.
3. The CPIO & Executive Engineer, CD-IX, I&FC, GNCTD, replied to the RTI Application on 10.04.2024, as under:
"1.No such information is available in this office.
2.-do-
3.-do-
4.Rs. 3500 has been refunded to the account details given by Sh. Brijesh vide letter dated 30.03.2024."
4. The FAA vide order dated 22.05.2024, held as under:
"...During the course of hearing, EE/CD-IX/PIO has stated that their office has already informed the appellant online that no such information is available in their office. EE/CD-IX/PIO has also shown the peon book, in which the information in respect of his earlier online RTI bearing No. DOIFC/R/2022/60071/1 has been received at the address given by Sh. Brijesh.
The appeal is disposed off with an Order that EE/CD-IX/PIO shall deliver all the information as sought by the appellant and available in their office at his address through a special message within 7 days of issue of this Order."Page 2 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/IAFCD/A/2024/628039
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 30.06.2024, inter alia stating as under:
"Sir it's a matter of public interest and there may be involvement of huge corruption by the officers of I&FC department as well as PIO has no fear of CIC. Its responsibility of PIO to transfer the RTI to relevant division if any information is not available with his division however the same was not transferred by PIO. It is a clear case of violation of provisions of RTI Act therefore it is requested you to take necessary action as under..."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person. On behalf of the Respondent, Puneet Dudeja, EE (CD-IX) & CPIO along with Krishna Kumar Meena, JE (CD-IX), attended the hearing in person.
7. The Appellant stated that the information sought pertained to an earlier CIC order, wherein the then CPIO & EE, NSP Patwal was proceeded against under Section 20 of the RTI for the delay in providing the information and for charging additional fee as photocopying charges after the expiry of the stipulated time period of the RTI Act. That, as on date, although he has received the information in respect of the earlier RTI Application and has also received the refund of the photocopying charges, but he wants to ensure that the delay of two years caused by the Respondent in this process should not be left scot-free, and therefore prays for penal action to be taken against the CPIO.
8. The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the FAA's order, the entire set of documents in respect of his earlier online RTI Application no. DOIFC/R/2022/60071/1, was sent to the Appellant through a special messenger.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the CPIO had provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application on 10.04.2024, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the FAA failed to confine his adjudication to the RTI Application under reference and instead of pointing out any deficiency in the CPIO's reply of 10.04.2024, issued an unwarranted direction in respect of an earlier RTI Page 3 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/IAFCD/A/2024/628039 Application, rendering the order dated 22.05.2024, as bad in law. The FAA is hereby cautioned against issuance of such orders that negate the purpose of designating a FAA and renders the channel of First Appeal futile.
10. Further, it is observed that in a strict sense, through points 1-4 of the RTI Application, the Appellant did not seek any specific record, instead required the CPIO to deduce the availability of such records, speculating a certain action taken against the named individual. For the said reason, the Commission is not inclined to accept the argument of the Appellant that the RTI Application ought to have been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to any other office.
11. Consequently, the Commission finds no scope for any further intervention in the matter.
12. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 04.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/IAFCD/A/2024/628039 Page 5 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/IAFCD/A/2024/628039 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)