Central Information Commission
Manoj Kumar vs Gnctd on 20 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125666
Manoj Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
PIO, VERSUS
Section Officer - RTI Section बनाम
Real Estate Regulatory Authority
GNCTD, 2nd Floor, Shivaji Stadium
Annexe Building, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025
Date of Decision : 20.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 02.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 06.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.08.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. It is true that the application of project registration of M/s MERA BABA Reality Associate Pvt. Ltd. was received in RERA on 11/4/2019.
2.What is the time limit for registration/cancellation of a project under section 5(1) of the RERA. Act 2016 Page 1 of 6
3.In the matter of M/s Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd. what will be the time limit under section 5(1) of RERA Act 2016, when some additional documents has been submitted by the said developer suo- moto on 10/5/2019 in continuation of his original application dated 11/4/2019.
4.It is true that in the movement/diary register of the RERA dated 11/4/2019, the said application has been entered in the name of A.S.O. (Project)
5.It is true that Chairman RERA has visited the table of Manoj Kumar ex Dy. Secy. RERA on 07/5/2019, to see unattended file with him that time, and as per report furnished by Chairman RERA dated 07/5/2019, the file of Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd. was not found/available in the list of unattended files.
6.What kind of losses to Govt. and public as observed in the matter of Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.12.2023 stating as under:
1. Yes
2. As per the Act
3. As per the Act
4. As per the statement dt. 17-05-2019 of Shri Vivek Yadav, then diarist, it has been clearly mentioned that after diarizing, the said application was given to Dy. Director for marking and not received back after marking.
5. During the routine visit of Hon'ble Chairman, RERA to the desks of various officials in the office on 07-05-2019, Hon'ble Chairman noticed a large number of files that seemed to be lying unattended on the table of Dy. Director, Shri Manoj Kumar
6. No such record is available
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.05.2024, held as under:
"
1. Provide photocopies of the relevant provisions of RE (RD) Act. 2016.
2. Provide photocopies of the relevant page of the diary register.
Page 2 of 63. Provide photocopies of report of the Chairman, RERA dated 07.05.2019.
Rest of the replies of the PIO found satisfactory as per the RTI Act, 2005. PIO is directed to supply the information within seven days of this order."
4. In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO/RERA, LO has furnished reply dated 09.05.2024 as under:
"..As per first Appellate Authority order no 792-793 dated 03.05.24 the point wise information as received from S.O.(Admn.) vide letter no.872 dated 08.05.24 is enclosed.
1. Photocopies of relevant provisions of RE(RD) Act. 2016 is enclosed
2. Photocopy of the relevant page of diary register is enclosed
3. Photocopies of report of the Chairman, RERA dated 07.05.2019 is enclosed.."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
6. A written submission dated 10.11.2025 has been received from Secretary, Rera and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Kindly refer to your office letter/notice No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125666 dated 13.10.2025. In this regard it is submitted that RTI application of Sh. Manoj Kumar was received in this office on 04/03/2024 (copy placed at 'A') and reply of this RTI application was sent to the applicant on 02/04/2024 (copy placed at 'B').
Further, the applicant filed an appeal before First Appellate Authority and the same was disposed by First Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.05.2024 (copy placed at 'C') and the reply of this appeal was sent to the applicant on 09.05.2024 (copy placed at 'D').."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.Page 3 of 6
Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, PIO/SO, Shri Rakesh Kataria, D.S- participated in the hearing.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 04.04.2024 is not available on record.
8. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated information sought at point No. 3 has not been provided by the PIO.
9. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply has been duly provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, the in compliance of order of FAA, a revised reply has also been provided to the Appellant. He further submitted that the Appellant is their own employee.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the custodian of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self- explanatory. It is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. The CPIO can only provide information which is readily available in their records. A reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and
(j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, Page 4 of 6 or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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
11. In view of foregoing, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. Hence, there remains no reason for intervention in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority Real Estate Regulatory Authority GNCTD, 2nd Floor, Shivaji Stadium Annexe Building, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)