Central Information Commission
R Palani vs Ut Of Puducherry on 29 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/117387
R Palani ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: UT of Puducherry,
Puducherry ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 09.02.2024 FA : 09.04.2024 SA : 28.05.2024
CPIO : 26.02.2024 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 19.01.2026
Date of Decision: 23.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"With the reference to your letter cited, I request that your letter may please be sent with reference to public Information commission."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your RTI application, I am to inform that you may peruse the available files on any working day during office hours on payment of inspection charges provided under section 4(d) of the Right to Information (Regulation of fee & cost) Rules, 2005 (i.e) no fee for first hour and a fee of Rs.5/- for every Page 1 of 6 subsequent hour (or fraction thereof). The copy of the documents as permissible under RTI Act, on payment of Rs. 2/ for each page towards photocopying charges may be obtained. In this connection, you may meet the dealing assistant of GLR Section of this office on any working day within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter,"
3. PIO vide letter dated 12.03.2024 stated as under:
"..With reference to the subject cited above, the information sought by you contains in 15 pages and the same may be obtained on payment of Rs. 30/- Rs. 2/- per page towards photocopying charges as per Rule 4(a) of Right to Information (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005. In this connection, you may meet dealing assistant of B2 Section of this office on 15.03.2024 during the office hours..."
4. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.05.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri Madan Kumar, APIO/Tehsildar- participated in the hearing through video-conference.
5. The Appellant, inter alia, submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO within stipulated time frame. He averred that he had sought a copy of a letter which is alleged to have been sent by him. He further averred that he had never sent any such letter to the Respondent Public Authority, and since it has been alleged that he had done so, he sought a copy of the said letter through the instant RTI application. He stated that the documents provided by the PIO were never sought and the letter which Page 2 of 6 was actually sought by him was not provided. He further stated that he does not want to inspect the records.
6. The Respondent inter alia submitted that the information regarding fixation of GLR value in respect of land at R.S. No. 30/3/A/1/C- 47 of Thirukanchi Revenue Village has been already provided to the Appellant. He averred that the GLR value has been already fixed and the Appellant is unnecessarily making requests for his letter. He stated that the letter sought by the Appellant was written by the Appellant, however, the same is not traceable in their records at this stage. He stated that GLR value of the land was fixed at the request of the Appellant and on the basis of the fixation of GLR value the Appellant has already sold the land. He offered inspection of records to the Appellant. A written submission in this regard has been received from APIO and same has bene taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...1. Mr. R. Pazhani, S/o. Ramasamy, No. 26-A/10, Pazhayiya Maniyakara Street, Nellithope, Tamil Nadu, submitted an RTI application on 08/02/2024 seeking information regarding fixation of GLR value in respect of land at R.S. No. 30/3/A/1/C- 47 of Thirukanchi Revenue Village.
2. In response, this office issued a reply in Form-III on 26/02/2024, instructing the applicant to remit photocopy charges at Rs. 2/- per page.
3. The applicant again submitted a representation on 28/02/2024 stating that he would not visit the office in person and requested the information to be forwarded by post.
4. Subsequently, this office addressed a letter to the applicant on 12/03/2024, requesting him to meet the Section Assistant for supply of the information.
5. Thereafter, the applicant enclosed three Indian Postal Orders of Rs. 10/- each, totaling Rs. 30/-.
6. The applicant also submitted a representation on 09/04/2024 seeking the status of his RTI application.Page 3 of 6
7. Based on the above, the First Appellate Authority issued a memorandum to the Public Information Officer (PIO) calling for views and comments.
8. The PIO submitted a report stating that the appellant had not visited this office, vide Letter No. 2014/SCRS/RTI/A-5/2024/967 dated 29/05/2024.
9. Subsequently, the First Appellate Authority passed an order vide No. 2014/SCRS/RTI Appeal/B2/2024/1033, directing the PIO to furnish the information sought for immediately.
10. In the meantime this office had sent information sought by the applicant on 13/01/2025.
11. Now, the Central Information Commission has intimated that the hearing for the appeal/complaint is scheduled on 19/01/2026 at 11.00 A.M. at the Collectorate..."
Decision:
7. 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 a copy of a letter which he contended was never written by him and to establish that the letter was not signed by him he sought a copy of the letter. It is observed that the Respondent has offered inspection of records to the Appellant. However, during hearing, the Respondent stated that a copy of letter sought by the Appellant is not available in their records at this stage. PIO further stated that the letter was related to request made by the Appellant for fixation of GLR value of land which has been already done at the request of the Appellant and on the basis of the fixation of GLR value the Appellant has already sold the land.
8. Commission notes that the CPIO had offered inspection of records to the Appellant, but the Appellant did not avail the opportunity to inspect the records. The Commission further observes that the document sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is beyond the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as the Appellant has requested the Respondent to provide a request letter which was sent by him for fixation of GLR Value of his land and on the basis of aforesaid fixation he has already Page 4 of 6 sold his land. It is observed that the Appellant is using the provisions of the RTI Act in seeking his own documents and that the same are not permitted for the purpose as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of PIO, High Court Madras v/s. CIC and B. Bharathi (W.P No.26781 of 2013) as under:
24. 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."
9. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO O/o. the Sub-Collector-(Revenue)-South (Government of Puducherry), Villianur, Puducherry-605110.
2 R Palani Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)