Central Information Commission
Anirban Chakraborty vs Central Information Commission on 23 January, 2026
B केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/642853 +
CIC/CICOM/A/2024/641427
Anirban Chakraborty ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Central Information ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Commission, Munrika,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 642853 21.04.2024 14.05.2024 04.06.2024 25.07.2024 26.09.2024
2. 641427 18.03.2024 16.04.2024 17.05.2024 18.06.2024 16.09.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 11.12.2025
Date of Decision: 22.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/642853 Page 1 of 6
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Under the RTI Act section "4 (1) every public authority shall (d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi- judicial decisions to affected persons" please Do Not provide me your personal opinion (as shortcut) but provide me certified copies of all the documents/records that explain the reason for why in the extant Right to Information Rules, 2012. Order of the Commission - The order of the Commission shall be in writing and issued under the seal of the Commission duly authenticated by the Commissioner for this purpose. Open proceedings have been omitted/ discontinued/ expunged as contained in the absolute Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005:
Order of the Commission - order of the commission shall be pronounced in open proceedings and be in writing duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose. Requisition: - Please try to find all the relevant historical documents to provide me the information sought as soon as possible to empower me to henceforth do video recordings of future CIC 1st Appeal and 2nd Appeal hearings or at least make an argument with the CIC in this respect. For additional cost website enabling me to do online payment."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under: -
"Point 1: CIC's Order dated 8.5.2024 passed in both the matters (CIC/DEXSW/A/2022/664968 AND CIC/DEXSW/A/2023/639662), was done strictly in accordance with the procedures enumerated in the RTI Act, 2005. CIC, before passing the order, heard both the Appellant (yourself) and Respondent, issued written order, which was duly authenticated by the Deputy Registrar, CIC and sent to you.
Point 2: CIC does not video record the Court proceedings in any of the cases being heard."Page 2 of 6
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.09.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/641427
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"1) Please provide the internet address (URL) where this RTI Application and the reply of the C.P.I.O. have been published on the website of the Central Information Commission for the people of India.
2) Please publish my signed written statement submitted to the Central Information Commission on 8th Jan 2024 having diary nos. 601184 and 601186 (both identical), by appending my written statement with the published order dated 17th Jan 2024 of Central Information Commissioner Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari in the File Nos. CIC/DEXSW/A/2022/664968 and CIC/DEXSW/A/2023/639662. Kindly confirm in writing if my request has been granted.
3) Please provide me by email the soft copies of (1) Reports of Audits done & (2) advice/recommendations given by the Central Information Commission in the last five years from date for the public authorities (1) Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare & (2) Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme, under the following section of Department of Personnel and Training's Office the Memorandum dated 15th April 2013 being no. 1/6/2011-IR:
4) Please provide me in Compact Disk the audio and video recording of my hearing dated 15th Jan 2024 for my 2nd Appeals having File Nos.Page 3 of 6
CIC/DEXSW/A/2022/664968 and CTC/DEXSW/A/2023/639662. I shall pay the cost of CD."
2. The CPIO replied pointwise vide letter dated 16.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"1. Information received on 27.03.2024 from Shri Sandeep Kumar, DS & CPIO (M&R) Section under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX - 1.
2. & 4. Information received on 12.04.2024 from Shri S. Anantharaman, DR to IC(VT) Section under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX - 2.
3. (i) & (ii). Information received on 08.04.2024 from Shri U. S. Kanyal, CPIO, Legal Cell under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005 is attached as ANNEX-3.
Desired information is in 73 pages, kindly pay Rs. 146/-@of Rs. 2/- per page as photocopying charges. Payment to be made through IPO (Payable to PIO, CIC, New Delhi)/ DD drawn in favour of PAO, CAT, New Delhi."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO on all the queries except query no. 3. The FAA has directed the CPIO on query no. 3 as under:
"In the instant case, CPIO (Legal Cell) is directed to provide the relevant available information as desired by the appellant as per the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.06.2024."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.09.2024.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and Mr. Pawan Kumar Ram, Section Officer, Mr. S.K Chitkara, Deputy Registrar, Mr. Ankit Arora, S.O (L) and Ms. Soniya, SO (MR), attended the hearing in person.
Page 4 of 66. In file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/642853, the appellant inter alia submitted that instead of furnishing sought information, the CPIO, had provided his personal opinion in his reply. The respondent stated that a suitable reply has been furnished to the appellant on 14.05.2024.
7. In file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/641427, the appellant stated that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information as sought. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier responses dated 27.03.2024, 12.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 submitted that all relevant available information had been furnished to the appellant. Further, The FAA's order dated 18.06.2024 had also been complied with vide letter dated 20.06.2024 and the same is also reproduced as under:-
"Pursuant to orders of FAA dated 18.06.2024 on First Appeal No. CICOM/A/P/24/00062, relevant available information on point 3 of the RTI Application is provided as under:
Point No.: (i) Copy of relevant page of CIC Annual Report 2019-20 showing overall percentage & grading (32%, E) of 'Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare' on its Third Party Audit Report 2019-20 is enclosed. (ii) Copy of relevant pages of Transparency Sample Audit Report of 2018 showing percentage & grade (38%, E ) of Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare is enclosed. There is no record in respect of ECHS as the same is not registered with CIC (as a Public Authority) as ascertained from M& R Section of CIC."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that in file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/642853, the RTI Application does not seek information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and yet the CPIO has provided a clarification in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
Page 5 of 6In file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/641427, the Commission observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate replies to the appellant vide letters dated 27.03.2024, 12.04.2024, 08.04.2024 and 20.06.2024.
9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोखरियाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067
2. Anirban Chakraborty Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)