Central Information Commission
Vanama Arjuna Rao vs All India Council For Technical ... on 10 February, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/AICTE/A/2025/109373
VANAMA ARJUNA RAO .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
RTI CELL, HEAD OFFICE: DELHI, NELSON
MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070
2. The CPIO
Sri Venkateswara Engineering College, RTI Cell,
NH-65, Amaravadhi Nagar,
Distt.- Suryapet, Telangana-508213 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026
Date of Decision : 02.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 05.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 18.01.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.01.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.03.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.10.2024 seeking the following information:-Page 1 of 5
"I Request you to provide me a copy of application form along with all enclosed supporting documents at the time of seeking your approval for starting Sri Venkateswara Engineering college Suryapet TELANGANA 508213 college Code SVES."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.11.2024 stating as under:-
you are hereby called upon to make your submissions in writing or orally, as per section 11 of the Act, as to whether the information/record asked for by the applicant should be disclosed or not. The submissions or representation against the proposed disclosure should be made by you within ten days from the receipt of this notice, failing which the undersigned will take a decision in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act, without giving any further notice.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 22.01.2025, upheld reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Vanama Arjuna Rao present through video conference. Respondent No. 1: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, AD/PIO, AICTE, New Delhi, present in person.
Respondent No. 2: Dr. Raju Muthylara, Principal, Sri Venkateswara Engineering College present through video conference.
5. A written statement filed by the PIO, AICTE is taken on record.
6. Appellant narrated the genesis of instant Appeal being non-receipt of pay benefits and other entitled service benefits including pay revision for three years despite been employee of Respondent No. 2. Therefore, to clarify factual anomaly, the Appellant sought complete documents filed by Sri Venkateswara Engineering College including the service Rules for getting approval from AICTE. Appellant contended that the copy of Service Rules furnished by the Principal of Sri Venkateswara Engineering College pertains to year 1992-1993 Page 2 of 5 which were not applicable to the College and was not even signed by the Governing body, as such. Hence, it is not operational. It was the claim of Appellant that the Service Rules of Respondent No. 2 was amended in 2015, however, its benefits are not provided to the Appellant and therefore, the Principal of Sri Venkateswara Engineering College with malafide intent not shared this information. Appellant further contended that in order to address his issue regarding non-receipt of entitled service benefits he made a representation to the College on 28.12.2024 for which the Principal asked him to visit the college, however, his request went in vain. Appellant was made to run from pillar to post to get justice in the matter and finally took recourse to RTI Act, 2005 to gather requisite information to pursue the matter before the Court of Law. Appellant prayed the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information.
7. Per contra, rebutting the contentions of the Appellant, Respondent No. 2 (Dr. Raju Muthylara, Principal, Sri Venkateswara Engineering College stated that copy of service Rules of 1992-1993 as supplied to the Appellant are applicable to their employee since inception and no oral service Rules are available in their records. On oral suggestion of the Commission, Respondent No. 2 agreed to file an affidavit before the Central Information Commission with a copy marked to the Appellant deposing this statement in a categorical manner.
8. Respondent No. 1 (PIO, AICTE, Delhi) stated that upon receipt of RTI request from the Appellant a letter was issued to the third party College seeking their consent under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 before parting their information. In response to it, the third party denied to disclose their relevant information. Despite this, the then CPIO searched the record and furnished a reply intimating factual position for non-availability of records was already provided to Appellant in the first instance. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the CIC he again made efforts to retrace the records, however, no records regarding first approval of Sri Venkateswara Engineering College was found available in their office. This fact was also intimated to the Appellant. Decision:
9. The Commission on hearing the submissions of the parties and going through the case records observed that, as regards information sought by the Appellant regarding all documents submitted by Sri Venkateswara Engineering Page 3 of 5 College for getting first approval from AICTE. In response to which, PIO, AICTE (Respondent No. 1) replied that even on thorough search, the records of information sought were not found available in the office of AICTE and this fact was informed to the Appellant. In this regard, the Commission notes that reply of PIO is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as the PIO can only provide such information as is held in the office record, and he is not obligated to create information under the mandate of RTI Act. The Commission placed reliance on a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.12.2014 in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], wherein the Court has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
10. Further, the issue raised by the Appellant during hearing regarding alleged non-receipt of entitled service benefits by Sri Venkateswara Engineering College and no proper governing Service Rules made available by the Respondent No. 2 is a matter of grievance which cannot be adjudicated under the mandate of RTI Act, 2005. At this juncture, the Commission placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
11. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other Page 4 of 5 than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Nonetheless, by taking liberal view in the matter and as per hearing proceedings, the Respondent No. 2 (Dr. Raju Muthylara, Principal, Sri Venkateswara Engineering College, Telangana) is directed to substantiate his statement by filing an affidavit before the Commission with a copy marked to the Appellant, free of cost, deposing categorically that Service Rules of 1992- 1993 as provided to the Appellant are still applicable to the employees of Sri Venkateswara Engineering College, Telangana since inception of the College and no other amended Service Rules are available with them. The direction shall be complied by Respondent No. 2 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. Role of Respondent No. 1 is hereby dispensed with.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri VANAMA ARJUNA RAO Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)