Central Information Commission
Keshav Kumar Nishad vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 28 April, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
Keshav Kumar Nishad ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Steel Authority of
India Ltd., Durg, ... तवाद गण/Respondent
Chhatisgharh
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. 604344 11.11.2024 Not on 12.12.2024 13.01.2025 24.01.2025
record
2. 604611 11.11.2024 Not on 12.12.2024 13.01.2025 24.01.2025
record
3. 103508 11.11.2024 Not on 12.12.2024 13.01.2025 24.01.2025
record
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 23.04.2026
Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
P R Ramesh
Page 1 of 8
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"दं ड आदे श . 120324 िदनांक 09.05.2018 के िव अपील िदनांक 07.06.2018 अपील आवेदन 07.06.2018 की स ािपत ितिलिप और स ूण िववरण दान कर।
जाँ च अिधकारी जाँच को िवभाग और HR - सां की सह ीमती अिदित सतपथी।"
1.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2024 The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2025 observed as under:-
"उपरो अपील का अवलोकन िकया गया।
अपील के संदभ म संबंिधत िवभाग से ा 01 पृ की जानकारी संल कर े िषत की जा रही
है ।
तदनुसार अपील का िनराकरण िकया जाता है ।
आपके िदनांक 14.12.2024 के आरटीआई आवेदन के संदभ म, आपने जो जानकारी मांगी है , वह पहले ही आपके िपछले आवेदनों के उ र म दान की जा चुकी है । आरटीआई अिधिनयम के अनुसार, एक ही जानकारी को बार-बार उपल कराना आव क नहीं है ।
कुछ मांगी गई जानकारी अनुशासना क या ाियक ि या से संबंिधत है । इसे कट करना आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा 8 (1) (h) के अंतगत छूट ा है , ोंिक इससे ि या बािधत हो सकती है ।
उपरो के आधार पर, आपका आवेदन आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 के तहत आपको जानकारी दान नहीं िक जा सकती है । "
1.2. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.01.2025 Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611 Page 2 of 8
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"(िवभागीय जां च 2023 के िन ानुसार जानकारी दान करन की कृपा कर 1. चाहीं गई सूचना ① 28/12/2023 िवभागीय जां च कायवाही की स ािपत ितिलिप ीमती ि यंका मीणा कर िशकायत प और उसके मोबाइल म बनाये गये िविडयों। स ािपत ितिलिप का समूण िववरण दे )"
2.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2024 The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2025 observed as under:-
"उपरो अपील का अवलोकन िकया गया।
अपील के संदभ म संबंिधत िवभाग से ा 01 पृ की जानकारी संल कर े िषत की जा
रही है ।
तदनुसार अपील का िनराकरण िकया जाता है।"
ी केशव कुमार िनषाद एक पुनरावत आरटीआई आवेदक ह जो अपने िनजी उ े के
िलए जानकारी का खुलासा चाहते ह जो उनके िनजी िहत को बढ़ावा दे ता है न की सावजिनक िहत को। इससे आरटीआई के वैध उ े को काफी नुकसान प ं च रहा है । ी केशव कुमार िनषाद ने इस िवषय एवं इससे िमलते जुलते िवषयों पर करीब 50 से अिधक आर टी आई आवेदान दायर िकया है . िजनका जवाब उ िमल चुका है ।
इस कार आरटीआई के बार बार उपयोग का मामला सावजिनक ािधकरण का उ ीड़न है और इस कार आरटीआई का दु पयोग है ।
समी ा करने पर यह िनधा रत िकया गया है िक ी केशव कुमार िनषाद ने जो जानकारी मांगी है वह गत िहत से स ंिधत है और इससे बड़े सावजिनक िहत की पूित नहीं Page 3 of 8 होती है । इसिलए आर टी आई अिधिनयम के ावधान 8 (1) (0) के अनुसार हम अनुरोिधत जानकारी दान करने म असमथ है ।
2.2. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.01.2025 Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
दं ड आदे श . 120324 िदनां क 09.05.2018 के िव अपील िदनां क 07.06.20[18] अपील आवेदन 07.06.2018 की स ािपत ितिलिप और स ूण िववरण दान कर। जाँच अिधकारी जाँच को िवभाग और HR -
सां की सह ीमती अिदित सतपथी। 3.1 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First
Appeal dated 12.12.2024 The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2025 observed as under:-
"उपरो अपील का अवलोकन िकया गया।
अपील के संदभ म संबंिधत िवभाग से ा 01 पृ की जानकारी संल कर े िषत की जा
रही है ।तदनुसार अपील का िनराकरण िकया जाता है ।
आपके िदनां क 14.12.2024 के आरटीआई आवेदन के संदभ म, आपने जो जानकारी मांगी है, वह पहले ही आपके िपछले आवेदनों के उ र म दान की जा चुकी है।
आरटीआई अिधिनयम के अनुसार, एक ही जानकारी को बार-बार उपल कराना आव क नहीं है। कुछ मांगी गई जानकारी अनुशासना क या ाियक ि या से संबंिधत है । इसे कट करना आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा 8 (1) (h) के अंतगत छूट ा है, ोंिक इससे ि या बािधत हो सकती है ।
उपरो के आधार पर, आपका आवेदन आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 के तहत आपको जानकारी दान नहीं िक जा सकती है । "
Page 4 of 83.2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.01.2025 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Ms. R. Ranjani, GM(HR)- participated through video-conference
4 The appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to him till dated. He averred that in File Nos. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344 and CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508, the information sought was not provided. As regards CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611, the information sought has been denied under Section 8(1)(j), despite the fact that the same relates to his own case. He averred that complete documents have not been provided to him till date in reference to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. She averred that as regards File Nos. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344 and CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508, the Appellant has sought copy of his own appeal which had filed against the order dated 09.05.2028. She averred that documents filed by the RTI Applicant is not considered to be information as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in PIO, Registrar, High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission & B. Bharathi. As regards File No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611, all the documents related to disciplinary proceedings has been already provided to the Appellant. She averred that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant has been concluded and action has been taken in the matter. She stated that the Appellant has been removed from service. A written submission in this regard has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Decision:
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344 and CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508 Page 5 of 8
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought copy appeal which he himself had filed against the order dated 09.05.2018. The issue involved is no more res integra and it is settled position of law that seeking copies of documents submitted by RTI Applicant himself does not fall under the ambit of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f). Attention is drawn to the verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter of PIO, Registrar, High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission & B.Bharathi (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"26. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect...".
7. In the light of the foregoing facts Commission finds no requirement for intervention in these cases under the RTI Act. The matters are disposed of accordingly.
Second Appeal No CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information regarding his own disciplinary proceedings. It is noted that during hearing the PIO submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant has been concluded and Page 6 of 8 action has been taken in the matter. Furthermore, the Appellant has been removed from service. In the given circumstances, the Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
9. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. However, no information shall be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In case, relevant record contains any third- party information or any other exempted information then same must be redacted or blacked out as per section 10 of the RTI Act prior to the said inspection.
10. The said direction should be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO a week thereafter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
Page 7 of 81 The CPIO Chief General Manager-(HR) & CPIO, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Room No.-204, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District--Durg-490001(Chhattisgarh).
2 Keshav Kumar Nishad
Sl. No. Second Appeals
1 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344
2 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611
3 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508
Page 8 of 8
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure) Keshav Kumar Nishad ... अपीलकता/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Steel Authority of India Ltd., Durg, ... तवाद गण/Respondent Chhatisgharh 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. 604344 11.11.2024 Not on 12.12.2024 13.01.2025 24.01.2025 record
2. 604611 11.11.2024 Not on 12.12.2024 13.01.2025 24.01.2025 record
3. 103508 11.11.2024 Not on 12.12.2024 13.01.2025 24.01.2025 record The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 23.04.2026 Date of Decision: 27.04.2026 CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner P R Ramesh Page 1 of 8 ORDER Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"दं ड आदे श . 120324 िदनांक 09.05.2018 के िव अपील िदनांक 07.06.2018 अपील आवेदन 07.06.2018 की स ािपत ितिलिप और स ूण िववरण दान कर। जाँ च अिधकारी जाँच को िवभाग और HR - सां की सह ीमती अिदित सतपथी।"
1.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2024 The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2025 observed as under:-
"उपरो अपील का अवलोकन िकया गया।
अपील के संदभ म संबंिधत िवभाग से ा 01 पृ की जानकारी संल कर े िषत की जा रही
है ।
तदनुसार अपील का िनराकरण िकया जाता है ।
आपके िदनांक 14.12.2024 के आरटीआई आवेदन के संदभ म, आपने जो जानकारी मांगी है , वह पहले ही आपके िपछले आवेदनों के उ र म दान की जा चुकी है । आरटीआई अिधिनयम के अनुसार, एक ही जानकारी को बार-बार उपल कराना आव क नहीं है ।
कुछ मांगी गई जानकारी अनुशासना क या ाियक ि या से संबंिधत है । इसे कट करना आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा 8 (1) (h) के अंतगत छूट ा है , ोंिक इससे ि या बािधत हो सकती है ।
उपरो के आधार पर, आपका आवेदन आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 के तहत आपको जानकारी दान नहीं िक जा सकती है । "
1.2. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.01.2025 Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611 Page 2 of 8
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"(िवभागीय जां च 2023 के िन ानुसार जानकारी दान करन की कृपा कर 1. चाहीं गई सूचना ① 28/12/2023 िवभागीय जां च कायवाही की स ािपत ितिलिप ीमती ि यंका मीणा कर िशकायत प और उसके मोबाइल म बनाये गये िविडयों। स ािपत ितिलिप का समूण िववरण दे )"
2.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2024 The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2025 observed as under:-
"उपरो अपील का अवलोकन िकया गया।
अपील के संदभ म संबंिधत िवभाग से ा 01 पृ की जानकारी संल कर े िषत की जा
रही है ।
तदनुसार अपील का िनराकरण िकया जाता है।"
ी केशव कुमार िनषाद एक पुनरावत आरटीआई आवेदक ह जो अपने िनजी उ े के
िलए जानकारी का खुलासा चाहते ह जो उनके िनजी िहत को बढ़ावा दे ता है न की सावजिनक िहत को। इससे आरटीआई के वैध उ े को काफी नुकसान प ं च रहा है । ी केशव कुमार िनषाद ने इस िवषय एवं इससे िमलते जुलते िवषयों पर करीब 50 से अिधक आर टी आई आवेदान दायर िकया है . िजनका जवाब उ िमल चुका है ।
इस कार आरटीआई के बार बार उपयोग का मामला सावजिनक ािधकरण का उ ीड़न है और इस कार आरटीआई का दु पयोग है ।
समी ा करने पर यह िनधा रत िकया गया है िक ी केशव कुमार िनषाद ने जो जानकारी मांगी है वह गत िहत से स ंिधत है और इससे बड़े सावजिनक िहत की पूित नहीं Page 3 of 8 होती है । इसिलए आर टी आई अिधिनयम के ावधान 8 (1) (0) के अनुसार हम अनुरोिधत जानकारी दान करने म असमथ है ।
2.2. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.01.2025 Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
दं ड आदे श . 120324 िदनां क 09.05.2018 के िव अपील िदनां क 07.06.20[18] अपील आवेदन 07.06.2018 की स ािपत ितिलिप और स ूण िववरण दान कर। जाँच अिधकारी जाँच को िवभाग और HR -
सां की सह ीमती अिदित सतपथी। 3.1 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First
Appeal dated 12.12.2024 The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2025 observed as under:-
"उपरो अपील का अवलोकन िकया गया।
अपील के संदभ म संबंिधत िवभाग से ा 01 पृ की जानकारी संल कर े िषत की जा
रही है ।तदनुसार अपील का िनराकरण िकया जाता है ।
आपके िदनां क 14.12.2024 के आरटीआई आवेदन के संदभ म, आपने जो जानकारी मांगी है, वह पहले ही आपके िपछले आवेदनों के उ र म दान की जा चुकी है।
आरटीआई अिधिनयम के अनुसार, एक ही जानकारी को बार-बार उपल कराना आव क नहीं है। कुछ मांगी गई जानकारी अनुशासना क या ाियक ि या से संबंिधत है । इसे कट करना आरटीआई अिधिनयम की धारा 8 (1) (h) के अंतगत छूट ा है, ोंिक इससे ि या बािधत हो सकती है ।
उपरो के आधार पर, आपका आवेदन आरटीआई अिधिनयम, 2005 के तहत आपको जानकारी दान नहीं िक जा सकती है । "
Page 4 of 83.2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.01.2025 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Ms. R. Ranjani, GM(HR)- participated through video-conference
4 The appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to him till dated. He averred that in File Nos. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344 and CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508, the information sought was not provided. As regards CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611, the information sought has been denied under Section 8(1)(j), despite the fact that the same relates to his own case. He averred that complete documents have not been provided to him till date in reference to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. She averred that as regards File Nos. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344 and CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508, the Appellant has sought copy of his own appeal which had filed against the order dated 09.05.2028. She averred that documents filed by the RTI Applicant is not considered to be information as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in PIO, Registrar, High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission & B. Bharathi. As regards File No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611, all the documents related to disciplinary proceedings has been already provided to the Appellant. She averred that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant has been concluded and action has been taken in the matter. She stated that the Appellant has been removed from service. A written submission in this regard has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Decision:
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344 and CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508 Page 5 of 8
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought copy appeal which he himself had filed against the order dated 09.05.2018. The issue involved is no more res integra and it is settled position of law that seeking copies of documents submitted by RTI Applicant himself does not fall under the ambit of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f). Attention is drawn to the verdict dated 17.09.2014 by Madras High Court in the matter of PIO, Registrar, High Court Madras versus Central Information Commission & B.Bharathi (WPC 26781 of 2013) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
"26. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect...".
7. In the light of the foregoing facts Commission finds no requirement for intervention in these cases under the RTI Act. The matters are disposed of accordingly.
Second Appeal No CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information regarding his own disciplinary proceedings. It is noted that during hearing the PIO submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant has been concluded and Page 6 of 8 action has been taken in the matter. Furthermore, the Appellant has been removed from service. In the given circumstances, the Commission directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
9. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. However, no information shall be furnished by the PIO, to the Appellant, which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. In case, relevant record contains any third- party information or any other exempted information then same must be redacted or blacked out as per section 10 of the RTI Act prior to the said inspection.
10. The said direction should be complied within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO a week thereafter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
Page 7 of 81 The CPIO Chief General Manager-(HR) & CPIO, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Room No.-204, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District--Durg-490001(Chhattisgarh).
2 Keshav Kumar Nishad
Sl. No. Second Appeals
1 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604344
2 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/604611
3 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/103508
Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)