Central Information Commission
E Vishwanath vs Comptroller & Auditor General on 29 April, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/132708
E VISHWANATH ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Principal Accountant General (Audit-I),
15A, Maharshi Dayanand Marg,
Alka Puri Colony, Prayagraj,
Uttar Pradesh 211001. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28-04-2026
Date of Decision : 28-04-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27-01-2025
CPIO replied on : 17-03-2025
First appeal filed on : -
First Appellate Authority's order : -
Complaint dated : 25-09-2025
CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/132708 Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27-01-2025 seeking the following information:
"Subject: Seeking certified copy of my first appeal-memo, dated 26/09/2023, mentioned in para 02, of FAA's appellate decision no. 18/2023, presumably dated 31/10/2023 (as per to endorsement reference), since the order, in itself, does not embody date thereof (copy enclosed), and repeatedly sought after, vide my letters dated 6/11/2023, and 27/11/2023 (both regd. posts), and refused copy thereof, vide the CPIO's letter no. प्र० म० ले० - प्रथम / आर० टी० आई० / फा० सं० 62 / 2023 / 130, dated 2/1/2024, embodying a ridiculous decision; application U/S 6(1), RTI Act, 2005, seeking a certified copy of the said appeal- memo;-
You are desired to direct relevant CPIO, to the relevant CPIO, to postally remit me, certified copy, of the above- mentioned memo, under the captio- ned statutory provision, within the prescribed limitation."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 17-03-2025 stating as under:
"सूचना का अधिकार अधिननयम-2005 के अंतर्गत आपका आवेदन पत्र ददनांक 27.01.2025 इस कायागलय के जन सूचना अधिकारी को ददनांक 27.02.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ। आपके आवेदन पत्र के साथ 10/(दस) रुपये के इंडियन पोस्टल आिगर संख्या (64F 57069) सलग्न है जो "Account Officer O/o Principal A.G. (Audit-I) U.P." के पक्ष में दे य है ।
उपरोक्त आर०टी०आई० आवेदन पत्र में मांर्ी र्यी वांनित सूचना के ललए नवीन आवेदन 'वेतन एवं लेखाधिकारी' कायागलय महालेखाकार (लेखा एवं हकदारी)- प्रथम, उ०प्र०, प्रयार्राज के पक्ष में दे य शुल्क रु10/-(दस) रुपये का इंडियन पोस्टल आिगर प्रेषित कर सूचना प्राप्त कर सकते हैं।"CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/132708 Page 2 of 6
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Attended the hearing through video conference. Respondent: Ms. Promi, Sr. DAG, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The Complainant submitted, that he had filed an RTI application along with an IPO payable to the 'Accounts Officer' of the respondent's public authority. The complainant also submitted, that the respondent had not accepted the aforesaid IPO, despite the same being in line with the Rule No. 6 of the RTI Rules. The Complainant further submitted that the respondent does not want to disclose the sought information and hence they had not accepted the said IPO, despite the same being the valid mode of payment as per rules.
5. The Respondent submitted, that the IPO was not addressed to the concerned officer of their office. Hence, vide letter dated 19.06.2025, they had requested the complainant to send the IPO in favour of the Pay and Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General-I, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh.
6. The Commission queried the respondent, as to whether, they had tried to encash the IPO and it was declined. To this, the respondent submitted that they had not tried to encash the IPO. The Commission also queried the respondent as CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/132708 Page 3 of 6 to how did they not accepted the IPO submitted by the complainant, when the same is submitted in accordance with Rule No. 6 of the RTI Rules. To this, the respondent did not give any satisfactory response.
Decision
7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the respondent had not accepted the IPO filed by the complainant, despite the same being in consonance with Rule No. 6(b) of the RTI Rules, 2012. Hence, the then incumbent CPIO is directed to submit a detailed written explanation to the Commission for not accepting the valid IPO filed by the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add. Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Attention of the complainant is drawn towards Judgment dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the W.P.(C) No. 6755/2012 in case titled J.K.Mittal V. Central Information Commission & Anr. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court held that while considering a complaint made under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:
"5. In view of the above referred authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, there can be no dispute that while considering a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/132708 Page 4 of 6 direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner."
Since the instant case is a complaint case, the Commission finds that the respondent cannot be directed to provide the sought information.
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: 28.04.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), 15A, Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Alka Puri Colony, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211001.CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/132708 Page 5 of 6
2. The FAA, Principal Accountant General (Audit-I), 15A, Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Alka Puri Colony, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211001
3. E Vishwanth CIC/CAGIN/C/2025/132708 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)