Central Information Commission
Suresh Kumar Ranga vs Container Corporation Of India Ltd. on 6 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/131144
Suresh Kumar Ranga .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Container Corporation of India Ltd.
CONCOR Annexe, NSIC MDBP
Building, 3rd Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate,
New Delhi - 110020 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2026
Date of Decision : 06.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Status of the complaint dated 08.10.2013 submitted by the undersigned applicant which was said to be being investigated as matter of abundant caution.
2. Name of the concerned department (s) where the said complaint was being investigated.
3. Name and designation of incharge of this concerned department where the said complaint was being investigated.Page 1 of 5
4. Total number of persons whose statement was recorded during investigation.
5. Total number of pages in Noting Portion of the file (s) were generated during investigation.
6. Total number of pages in Correspondence Portion of the file (s) have generated and/or gathered during investigation.
7. Date on which investigation completed."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.04.2023 stating as under:
"Point no. 1 and 2: Complaint dated 08.10.2013 was inquired upon and this was further subject matter of Police Investigation, and report thereof was submitted to the Police. The subject matter of the complaint is presently sub-judice in court on the private complaint of the Applicant and the Applicant is in possession of all documents available in court.
Point 3 to 7 : The information is therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) & 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. 2005."
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2023. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 15.05.2023.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Brijesh Kumar, Senior Manager & APIO present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is available on record.
6. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent till date. He stated that action taken on his complaint should be provided to him. The Appellant further contended that broad outcome of his complaint was never informed to him.
Page 2 of 57. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"At the outset this Public Authority would like to apprise the Hon'ble Commission about the misuse of the RTI Act by the complainant who is a dismiss/removed employee of this Public authority who has been filing numerous complaints against various officials of this Public Authority. He has mentioned one such complaint dated 08/10/2013 and he has himself stated that presently the matter is sub-judice before Court of Law.
The Appellant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands as he has concealed/suppressed material facts which is within his possession & knowledge that he raised the same complaint before the Police and Police obtained this Public Authority comments and based upon Police investigation closure report was submitted by the Police. These documents are part of the Court proceedings used by the Appellant for filing private complaint, which is presently pending before the competent court.
Therefore the allegation that Public Authority is giving vague reply is incorrect and the fact remain that the Appellant is in possession of this Public Authority comprehensive response on the complaint which is the part of the complaint case filed by the Appellant.
It is pertinent to mention that Appellant is in habit of making several false and frivolous complaint before various authorities and simultaneously uses interim proceedings details to make RTI applications with sole motive of harassing Public Authority officials. The Appellant is using RTI Act to sub serve his private interest actuated out of personal pique and motive to settle personal score with the official of this Public Authority."
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that factual position in the matter as per the documents available on record at the relevant time has been provided to the Appellant vide their letter dated 04.04.2023. The Respondent stated that the subject-matter of the complaint of the Appellant is still pending before the Judicial Court and documents related to the same is already available with the Appellant and available in Court. He reiterated that action taken on his complaint Page 3 of 5 available at relevant time (at the time of giving reply to the RTI application) has already been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
9. The Commission upon perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the CPIO. The Commission observes that complete factual position in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant as per his RTI application as available at the relevant time within the period as stipulated under the RTI Act.
10. It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. There is no provision in the RTI Act to keep providing progressive and successive replies even after having replied to the RTI application at the initial stage giving the status as was obtaining at the relevant time.
11. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
12. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
13. The Respondent is directed to share a copy of their written submissions with the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011-26107040 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, Container Corporation of India Ltd.
CONCOR Bhawan, C-3, Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110 076 Shri Suresh Kumar Ranga Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)