Central Information Commission
Arun vs Ut Of Puducherry on 22 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/UTPON/C/2024/602556, CIC/UTPON/C/2024/604246,
CIC/UTPON/C/2024/639803, CIC/UTPON/A/2024/623878,
CIC/UTPON/C/2024/622694, CIC/UTPON/C/2024/623877 &
CIC/INDAC/C/2024/624382
Arun ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Puducherry Distilleries Limited,
R.S. No. 144 & 145, Door No. 18,
Ariyapalayam Village, Villianur,
Puducherry - 605110 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2025
Date of Decision : 21.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned complaints and second appeal are clubbed together as
the Appellant/Complainant is common and subject-matter is similar in
nature and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
(Total number of 27 complaints/second appeals of the
Complainant/Appellant are listed today for hearing before the Commission)
CIC/UTPON/C/2024/602556
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
Page 1 of 25
RTI application filed on : 07.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 21.11.2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 07.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"I need information from the Puducherry Distilleries Limited and the requested information is enclosed in PDF Encl:
Fact: Managing Director Mr. S.Sathiyamoorthy vide his letter No:PDL/Estt/A3/NCBC/Rep/2023/331, dated.31 May 2023, stated that, "6. .... Thiru. I.Arun, has been engaged as DRCL on 27.10.2014, on considering his application requesting for appointment in PDL on Compassionate ground....
7. ....Nandha Kumar .K, date of engagement as DRCL 16.02.2015, Sarasu.S, date of engagement as DRCL 16.02.2015 Fact: Affidavit filed by Managing director of Puducherry Distilleries Limited (respondents 4 & 5) to Hon'ble Judge of Madras High Court for W.P No.847/2014, stated that, "9(D)... and engaged 3 more persons on casual and daily rated basis on 16.02.2015....... ..9(E) ... Therefore, based on such engagements on casual and Daily rated basis for implementation of 2 temporary Schemes, those 55 persons have no legal right to seek for either continuous engagement or absorption in any sanctioned post in the 4th respondent. The 4 th respondent as an Instrumentality of the state has also no powers to ignore the constitutional Scheme of Public Employment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and R.Rs framed for all sanctioned permanent posts and absorb them in those posts. Therefore, on completion of the above 2 temporary Schemes, the 4th Respondents would stop engaging them"
Seeking following information from the Managing Director of Puducherry Distilleries Limited, Page 2 of 25
1. Kindly provide the details of the name of 3 persons engaged as Daily Rated basis on 16.02.2015.
2. Date of Completion of 2 temporary schemes sated by the Managing Director to Madras High Court in his affidavit stated above.
3. Names of all 55 persons informed to Hon'ble Judge of Madras High Court for W.P No.847/2014 by Managing Director of PDL in his affidavit.
4. Provide information in following format for the persons engaged as multipurpose worker by absorption/ad hoc on 25.02.2015 and 17.08.2022 in the name of compassionate.
S Nam Dat Date Age as Whet Educati Whether Whethe
N e e of of on her onal eligible r
o birt appoin initial age is qualific educatio eligible
h t engag eligibl a n for both
ment e e tion ally
ment
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 21.11.2023 stating as under:
"The RTI application is forwarded to PIO, PDL, Puducherry, as the subject pertains to PDL. The forwarding letter is attached herewith.
Encl.
A copy of the online RTI application No. DICPD/R/E/23/00023 dated 07.11.2023 of Thiru. I. Arun, S/o. Ilangovan, 42, Rajiv Gandhi Street, Muthialpet, Puducherry, is transferred under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005, to your office for disposal, as the information sought by the applicant pertains to PDL, Puducherry.
2. Therefore, it is requested that the reply may be furnished directly to the applicant under intimation to this office."
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
CIC/UTPON/C/2024/604246 Page 3 of 25 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 19.12.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.01.2024 Information sought:
4. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"I can't withdraw my EPF contribution because of some clarification requested in EPF office from Puducherry Distilleries Limited, in this regard I submitted request to Managing Director of Puducherry Distilleries Limited vide my letter dated. 29.11.2023, 02.12.2023, & 4.12.2023 with the joint declaration form for correction in my EPF account bearing UAN No. 100806929307 by register post in this regard seeking following information.
Description of Information Required:
1. Provide information whether the abovementioned letter received. Furnish the copy of the letter.
2. Kindly Provide information Whether the Joint declaration form sent to EPF office. Provide me the date it was sent.
3. (i) Provide information whether the corrections are carried out (ii) if not provide me the cause as information."
5. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
CIC/UTPON/C/2024/639803 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 05.09.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.09.2023 Information sought:
6. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 27.07.2023 seeking the following information:
Page 4 of 25"PDL are under control of directorate of industries and commerce are regularizing illegally in the name of compassionate appointment without following the prescribed recruitment Rules in force, more corruption, malpractice and irregularity in engaging a persons are continuously working out with knowledge of the Directorate of Industries and commerce which is also supported by the Director (I&C), dy. Director(I&C) and the Secretary to Government (Ind&Com). No direct recruitment was filled in Puducherry Distilleries Limited from 1994 to till date under compassionate ground as per G.O. Ms. No. 32/GC/UIII dated 23.07.1999 & G.O.Ms No.27, Dated: 26.04.2018 by considering the application, revenue certificate ,age, education qualification, NOC from other family members, legal heir certificate etc. But irregular regularisation filled in the name of compassionate appointment from the year 1994 to 2021 by absorption/ad hoc in violation of the G.O. Ms. No.22, 27.2.2009 / Honourable high court order / G.O. Ms. No. 32/GC/UIII dated 23.07.1999 or GO.Ms No.27, Dated: 26.04.2018.for to put an end this kind of irregular regularisation, I submitted a representation to Ministry of Home affairs and same has been forwarded to Chief Secretary of Puducherry and the Chief Secretary Approval obtained and then the DP&AR (PW) issued OM No.12016/4/DPAR/2023/GC/U.III, dated.25.07.2023 under subject: Public Services - Voluntary disclosure of Information relating to Compassionate appointment by the concerned Department /Societies/Autonomous bodies on their website -instruction - communicated-Reg.. in this connection I need the following information from the Directorate of Industries and Commerce.
1. (a) Provide information whether the detailed Recruitment rules for compassionate appointment/ policy and FAQs/ total Number of application submitted/total number of application pending/total number of application disposed as per norms are published in the website of Directorate of Industries and commerce or not?. (b) Provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for not uploaded in website.
I need the following information from the PDL
2. (a) Provide information whether the detailed Recruitment rules for compassionate appointment/ policy and FAQs are published in the website of PDL or not?.(b) Provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for not uploaded.Page 5 of 25
3. My application not considered for regular post under Direct Recruitment in Group "C" Post so far as per recruitment Rules in force till date in PDL. In this regard seeking following information from PDL. 3(a) Total Number of applications considered for regular post from 2014 to till date under direct recruitment as per the recruitment Rules in force. 3(b) Total number of application is pending.(b) information uploaded in PDL website or not.(c) reason for not uploaded u/s 4(1)(d).
4. Two persons regularised in 2015 by absorption from Casual Labour to MPW in the name of compassionate appointment, in this regard furnish following information, 4(a) Copy of the minutes of the selection committee held on 25.02.2015 for regularization. 4(b) Copy of their order No.PDL/P&A/E3/CA/2015, dated.25.02.2015.4(C) Copy of the Note file, Name of the 2 persons, education qualification of the 2 persons. Age of the 2 persons.
5. Four persons regularised by ad hoc in 2021 in the name of compassionate appointment, in this regard furnish following information, 5(a). Copy of the Note file including the approval of the Secretary to Government (Ind&Com) and order copy .
6. Total number of persons and their Names worked in the year January 2015 to October 2015 as Daily Rated Casual Labourers.
7. (A) Total number of persons and their Names worked in the year January 2015 to October 2015 under the Scheme Corporate Social Responsibilities & Clean India Movement (Scheme).(b) Provide information whether the Scheme (to meet the particular exigency) is completed or not and their date of completion of Scheme."
7. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 05.09.2024 stating as under:
"3 Applications for seeking appointment under compassionate ground in PDL have not been considered for Direct Recruitment, the dependents of the deceased employees are initially engaged as DRCL and later they are regularized for regular posts.
3 (a) No Applications were considered for Direct Recruitment (under compassionate grounds) 3 (b) No application is pending.Page 6 of 25
3 (b & c) Not uploaded as there are no separate recruitment rules for compassionate appointment in PDL.
4 (a)&(b) Order copy enclosed 4 (C) Third parties information could not be furnished under Section 8 (1)
(j), as there is no larger public interest.
5 The available details may be obtained in person by the Applicant 6 Enclosed in Annexure-1 3 (a) Enclosed in Annexure-11"
8. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to filed a First Appeal.
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/623878 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 12.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 04.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.06.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.06.2024 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 24.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1 . Description of Information Required: I worked from the Puducherry distilleries limited from 2014 to 2020 and obtained the diwali and pongal gift/bonus along with temporary workers in this regard kindly furnish the details of sanctioned and furnished gift/bonus for temporary and permanent workers in full details along with full note file, details of each person's name and their obtained cash/gift/bonus details obtained in aforesaid festival time from PDL in between the year 2015 to 2024. (As per DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 20091), file noting can be disclosed except file noting containing information exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act. Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act defines 'information' which includes 'record'. Section 2(i)(a) states that a 'record' includes any document, manuscript and file. The operative definition of a 'file' is given in the Manual of Office Procedure prepared by the Central Secretariat, Government of India. The definition of 'file' in the Manual includes 'notes' and 'appendices to notes'. In Central Information Commission(CIC) Page 7 of 25 Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, the CIC held that "file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure".) 2(a). The Deputy Director(Admin)-cum-Under Secretary to Government (Ind&Com) Thiru.A.Narendiran submitted a Factual Note to The Under Secretary to Government, Administrative Reforms Wing, Chief Secretariat of Puducherry vide his letter No.1992/DI&C/PDL/Compassionate- App/2022-2023, dated.29.11.2023, in the para " (b) His application has been considered with due respect and he has been engaged as daily rated casual Labourer from 27.10.2014 by issue of an order/memorandum thereon." In connection kindly state with certification/provide me the duly certified and legible copy of the order/memorandum/attendance copy/any proof of note file or any other minutes that my application considered in any Board meeting (Board of Directors) or by concerned department secretary to Govt.(Ind&Com) or by Managing Director of PDL /any other proof of salary obtained by Arun from 27.10.2014 to 30.11.2014 as engaged DRCL if any may be furnished as information. 2(b) Provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for submitted false report by Thiru .A. Narendiran to higher officials (The Under Secretary to Government (ARW) and the Under Secretary to Govt. of India(DoPT) and Ministry of Home affairs that " (b) His application has been considered with due respect and he has been engaged as daily rated casual Labourer from 27.10.2014 by issue of an order/memorandum thereon." (Section 177 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860: Furnishing false information.-- Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both). 2(c) The Director (Industries and Commerce) is one of the Board of Director in the period 2014, hence The Directorate of Industries and commerce obtain information from concern department and furnish information to RTI applicant for No.2(C) that as per the resolution of the Board of Directors, in its 242nd Board meeting held on 28.10.2014, the Managing Director of PDL allotted a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for implementation of schemes, in this connection Kindly provide me the duly certified and legible copy of the resolution/minutes of the 242nd Board."
10. The CPIO & Assistant Director transferred the RTI application to PIO PDL, Puducherry, on 12.02.2024 stating as under:
Page 8 of 25"The copy of the RTI application dt.24.01.2024 of Thiru. I. Arun, 9, Rajiv Gandhi Street, Senthamarai Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry 605 003, is forwarded under section 6(3) of the RTI 2005, for disposal of the same, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, as the subject matter relates to PDL, Puducherry, for Q.No.1.
2. Therefore, the reply for question number 1 of the RTI application may be furnished to the applicant directly with a copy to this Directorate for reference."
11. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2024 . The FAA vide its order dated 03.06.2024, held as under.
"The PIO has stated that the Appellant is repeatedly putting several petitions with incorrect information and also misuses the provisions of the RTI Act by seeking information repeatedly not related to any larger public interest.
Hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
The statement of the PIO during the personal hearing has been noted and viewed that the details mentioned above by the PIO are found to be in order.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed."
CIC/UTPON/C/2024/622694 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.05.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.05.2024 Information sought:
12. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 14.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. kindly furnish the soft copy of the Entire audit report for the year ended march 2013-2014,2014-2015,2015-2016,2016-2017,2017- 2018,2018- 2019,2019-2020,2020-2021,2021-2022,2022-2023,2022-2024 submitted by Puducherry Distilleries Limited, UT of Puducherry.Page 9 of 25
Once the information is not available with the Directorate of Industries and Commerce kindly transfer my request to Comptroller and Auditor General of India or PDL and intimate to me within 5 days as per the RTI provision for to obtain information.(and audit report is a public document informed by the director General of Audit, circular dated.07.10.2005)
2.Kindly provide information whether the Auditor SP. Associate prepared and submitted the aforesaid audit report?"
13. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.05.2024 stating as under:
"1. Commercial/Accounts details matters cannot be furnished. under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI act 2005.
2. No such Auditor has been engaged in PDL.."
14. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
CIC/UTPON/C/2024/623877 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 12.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 04.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.06.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.06.2024 Information sought:
15. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 24.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"1 . Description of Information Required: I worked from the Puducherry distilleries limited from 2014 to 2020 and obtained the diwali and pongal gift/bonus along with temporary workers in this regard kindly furnish the details of sanctioned and furnished gift/bonus for temporary and permanent workers in full details along with full note file, details of each person's name and their obtained cash/gift/bonus details obtained in aforesaid festival time from PDL in between the year 2015 to 2024. (As per DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 20091), file noting can be disclosed except file noting containing information exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act. Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act defines 'information' which includes Page 10 of 25 'record'. Section 2(i)(a) states that a 'record' includes any document, manuscript and file. The operative definition of a 'file' is given in the Manual of Office Procedure prepared by the Central Secretariat, Government of India. The definition of 'file' in the Manual includes 'notes' and 'appendices to notes'. In Central Information Commission(CIC) Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, the CIC held that "file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure".) 2(a). The Deputy Director(Admin)-cum-Under Secretary to Government (Ind&Com) Thiru.A.Narendiran submitted a Factual Note to The Under Secretary to Government, Administrative Reforms Wing, Chief Secretariat of Puducherry vide his letter No.1992/DI&C/PDL/Compassionate- App/2022-2023, dated.29.11.2023, in the para " (b) His application has been considered with due respect and he has been engaged as daily rated casual Labourer from 27.10.2014 by issue of an order/memorandum thereon." In connection kindly state with certification/provide me the duly certified and legible copy of the order/memorandum/attendance copy/any proof of note file or any other minutes that my application considered in any Board meeting (Board of Directors) or by concerned department secretary to Govt.(Ind&Com) or by Managing Director of PDL /any other proof of salary obtained by Arun from 27.10.2014 to 30.11.2014 as engaged DRCL if any may be furnished as information. 2(b) Provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for submitted false report by Thiru .A. Narendiran to higher officials (The Under Secretary to Government (ARW) and the Under Secretary to Govt. of India(DoPT) and Ministry of Home affairs that " (b) His application has been considered with due respect and he has been engaged as daily rated casual Labourer from 27.10.2014 by issue of an order/memorandum thereon." (Section 177 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860: Furnishing false information.-- Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both). 2(c) The Director (Industries and Commerce) is one of the Board of Director in the period 2014, hence The Directorate of Industries and commerce obtain information from concern department and furnish information to RTI applicant for No.2(C) that as per the resolution of the Board of Directors, in its 242nd Board meeting held on 28.10.2014, the Managing Director of PDL allotted a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for implementation of schemes, in this connection Kindly provide me the duly certified and legible copy of the resolution/minutes of the 242nd Board."Page 11 of 25
16. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 12.02.2024 stating as under:
"The copy of the RTI application dt.24.01.2024 of Thiru. I. Arun, 9, Rajiv Gandhi Street, Senthamarai Nagar, Muthialpet, Puducherry 605 003, is forwarded under section 6(3) of the RTI 2005, for disposal of the same, in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, as the subject matter relates to PDL, Puducherry, for Q.No.1.
2. Therefore, the reply for question number 1 of the RTI application may be furnished to the applicant directly with a copy to this Directorate for reference."
17. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.06.2024, held as under.
"The PIO has stated that the Appellant is repeatedly putting several petitions with incorrect information and also misuses the provisions of the RTI Act by seeking information repeatedly not related to any larger public interest.
Hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
The statement of the PIO during the personal hearing has been noted and viewed that the details mentioned above by the PIO are found to be in order.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed."
CIC/INDAC/C/2024/624382 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15.04.2024 CPIO replied on : 24.05.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.06.2024 Information sought:
18. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 15.04.2024 seeking the following information:
Page 12 of 25"The counter Affidavit filed by the official of the Directorate of Industries and Commerce Jointly in W.P No.847/2014 stated that only 54 persons are working under the 2 schemes and completion of the 2 schemes 54 persons will be disengaged, also the PDL management informed in counter affidavit to court in same W.P No. 847/2014 that that " As per Resolution of the Board of Directors in its 242nd Board meeting held on 28.10.2014, the 4th respondent has allotted a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for implementation of the said schemes" in connection furnish following information,
1. Provide information regarding the amount paid for individuals in month wise on the subject of the amount spent for casual basis workers/daily rated workers from 25,00,000/- from the date of 28.10.2014 till counter filed by your department and PDL management to court on different dates :03.09.2015 and 26.10.2015.(provide month wise cash paid to all individual person with name and date of payment under 2 schemes )
2. (a) Provide information whether the said 54 persons are disengaged after completion of the scheme or not. 2(b) Provide reason as information u/s 4(1)(d) for not disengaged. 2(c) Provide me the date regarding the completion of the 2 schemes. 2(d) Once not completed kindly provide me the copy of the Board approval till date and details of the fund allocated for all temporary workers till date.
3. (a) Provide information whether the circular passed by the finance department vide No.22161/FD/F3/2014 dated. 05.09.2014 is received by the directorate of industries and Commerce and PDL. 3(b) Provide me the date and receipt Number it was received.3(c) Provide me the information whether it was followed by Directorate of Industries and Commerce and PDL. 3(d) Furnish the copy of the approval of the government /finance department/competent Authority for continuance of temporary posts engaged from 2014 to till date in PDL. (Finance Department circular passed order that "The continuance of the temporary posts existing in Government Departments have to be reviewed once in six months in accordance with the extant orders issued by the DP&AR. Depending upon the necessity or otherwise of the posts, approval of Competent Authority/ concurrence of Finance Department for the continued engagement of the temporary posts has to be obtained by the Administrative Departments for a period of six months each time or till the necessity ceases whichever is earlier, before commencement of the further period of engagement.....
(i) Approval of Government for the continuance of Temporary posts Page 13 of 25 should be obtained before commencement of the period of engagement by submitting necessary proposals well in advance with all relevant particulars. The salary/ wages bills in respect of the temporary posts should not be claimed in the absence of approval for the continuance of the posts..")"
19. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 24.05.2024 stating as under:
"Please refer to the RTI Applications of Thiru. I. Arun, Puducherry dated 14.04.2024 & 15.04.2024, forwarded by the Public Information Officer- Cum- Assistant Director, Directorate of Industries and Commerce vide letter No. 2614/Ind & Com/RTI/2023/63 dated 23.04.2024, received under PDL L.D. No. 410 dated 25.04.2024.
In respect of Your RTI Application, it is informed that the Information sought by the applicant in RTI dated 14.0-4.2024 has already been furnished to the applicant vide Form-3 No. PDL/A3/PIO/RTI/REP/2024/229 dated 13.05.2024 and the copy of the same has been forwarded to the PIO, DIC.
In respect of your RTI application, it is informed that the Information sought by you in RTI application dated 15.04.2024 is Vague, Voluminous and in Contradictory manner. Moreover, the information sought by you is also not in larger public interest, which is against the provisions of the RTI Act, under Section 8 (1) (j)."
20. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
21. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Ms. B. Rajam, Company Secretary and PIO present through Video-Conference.Page 14 of 25
22. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"2. For the convenience of the Hon'ble Commission and to provide a comprehensive response, Puducherry Distilleries Limited (PDL) addresses all the listed complaints collectively, as they pertain to information sought from or transferred to PDL..
3. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the undersigned Public Information Officer (PIO) - presently holding the position of Company Secretary at PDL - was designated to the role of PIO only recently, with effect from February 8, 2025. As such, the undersigned has no personal knowledge of, or involvement in, the past internal deliberations, transactions, or decisions of PDL that have already been addressed in prior proceedings or disclosed unde the RTI Act.
4. 4. Furthermore, all the key posts in PDL were not filled up after the retirement of incumbents due to the revision of Recruitment Rules pursuant to an order made in W.P. No. 40712 of 2015 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Consequently, PDL engaged Consultants in line with guidelines issued by the Government of Puducherry. and the situation continues till date.
5. Presently, all complaints/appeals raised by Thiru. I. Arun were against the then PIO of PDL, Thiru. Djeabalane, a retired government servant of Puducherry, who was engaged as a Consultant (Personnel & Admn.) on 11.02.2022 and disengaged upon completion of 65 years, on 10.08.2024.
The Vexatious Nature and Misuse of the RTI Act by the Complainant:
It is humbly submitted that all complaints filed by Mr. L. Arun, as listed above, are purely vexatious and constitute a clear misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005, with the intent to harass the Public Authority. These complaints are liable to be dismissed in limine based on the following established facts:
a. The complainant, Mr. 1. Arun, has been persistently filing repeated RTI applications out of frustration stemming from his personal grievance regarding the non-grant of a regular appointment in PDI. on compassionate grounds. The RTI Act is designed for transparency and accountability of public authorities, not as a tool to setile personal service matters or to harass an organization.Page 15 of 25
b. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Central Information Commission had earlier heard Twenty four (24) Complaints/Second Appeals filed by Mr. I. Arun on 19.07.2024 and disposed them by a Common Order dated
23.07.2024, further underscoring a pattern of repeated and potentially vexatious filings related to his employment claims.
c. In continuation, the Complainant/Appellant was informed on 22.08.2024 by registered post with A.D., to inspect the available records/documents of PDL on 02.09.2024 at 11.00 a.m., but the Complainant/Appellant miserably failed to turn-up. The copy of the Acknowledgement Card dt.24.08.2024 is enclosed for kind reference. d. Moreover, the very subject matter of Mr. Arun's employment and compassionate appointment is currently, or has been, under the purview of the Honorable High Court of Madras:
Writ Petition No. 11683 of 2023: Mr. Arun filed this Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, seeking a direction to dispose of his Representation dated December 25, 2021, for a regular post on compassionate grounds. The Hon'ble High Court, by Order dated April 20, 2023, dismissed the said Writ Petition as "withdrawn." The Order specifically noted:
"... 3. It has been brought to notice that the petitioner had been temporarily appointed earlier on daily wages from 27.04.2014 but he had voluntarily abandoned from attending to duty from 10.06.2020 onwards, and that the said representation dated 25.12.2021 has already been disposed by proceedings in Ref. No. 471/PDL/F & a/e1/2022 dated 08.07.2022 and its copy has been placed on record. In such circumstances, Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the court to withdraw the writ petition reserving the rights of the petitioner to work out his rights before the proper forum in the manner recognized by law and he has made an endorsement to that effect in the court record....".
This clearly indicates that Mr. Arun withdrew the earlier petition upon the Hon'ble Court taking note of his voluntary abandonment of duty and the prior disposal of his representation by PDL. His subsequent RTI applications, therefore, appear to be an attempt to re-agitate issues already addressed or to circumvent judicial scrutiny. Writ Petition No. 29398 of 2023: Thereafter, Mr. Arun once again filed another Writ Petition (W.P.No.29398 of 2023) before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, praying to quash the Order of PDL dt.08.07.2022 and Page 16 of 25 consequently direct the PDL to employ the Petitioner as a permanent employee under the Compassionate Appointment scheme, and seeking the above said information under RTI seems to be unfair, untenable, improper and incorrect. Further, it will impede the process of the above said court case, and hence the information sought for is exempted under Sec.8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Since the matter is currently sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court, seeking information through RTI on a matter that is actively being adjudicated by a High Court is an abuse of the RTI process, as it attempts to gather evidence for ongoing litigation or to pressure the public authority outside the judicial framework.
e. The regular incumbent to the post of Company Secretary has been assigned the duties of Public Information Officer (PIO) in Puducherry Distilleries Limited with effect from February 8, 2025. This transition ensures that RTI matters are handled by a dedicated officer and addresses any past concerns regarding the previous PIO. PDL remains committed to processing legitimate RTI requests diligently.
Conclusion and Prayer:
In light of the aforementioned facts, particularly the consistent pattern of vexatious RTI applications filed by Mr. I. Arun, his attempts to use the RTI Act to settle a personal grievance related to his employment status, and the ongoing judicial proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras concerning the very subject matter of his employment, it is humbly and vehemently prayed before the Hon'ble Commission to:
Dismiss all the aforementioned complaints/appeal in limine as being devoid of merits and constituting a clear misuse of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Direct the Complainant, Mr. I. Arun, to pursue his claims solely before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 29398 of 2023, where the matter is presently sub judice, and to desist from using the RTI Act as an alternative forum for redressal of his employment grievances.
Puducherry Distilleries Limited is a responsible public authority and remains committed to transparency for genuine information seekers. However, we pray for the Hon'ble Commission's intervention to prevent the misuse of this vital legislation for personal harassment and litigation tactics. We assure the Commission of our full cooperation during the scheduled hearings"Page 17 of 25
With respect to file No. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/602556:
23. The Complainant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant complaint and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
24. The Respondent, during the hearing, admitted that no reply/information was provided to the Complainant on his RTI application. However, they have committed during the hearing that now they will provide reply/information to the Complainant as per his RTI application.
25. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that Ms. M Djeabalane was the then PIO at the relevant time who is now retired from service.
With respect to file No. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/604246:
26. The Complainant, vide letter dated 10.07.2025 had informed the Commission that "Requested information received from the PIO and I am satisfied with that, so I don't want to pursue this matter further. As a result, I humbly pray before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that my complaint may be dismissed and/or dropped."
27. The Respondent submitted that requisite information in the matter has already been provided to the Complainant as per his RTI application.
With respect to file Nos. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/639803 & CIC/UTPON/C/2024/623877:
28. The Complainant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI applications and instant complaints and submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
29. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Complainant.
Page 18 of 25With respect to file Nos. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/623878 and CIC/UTPON/C/2024/622694:
30. The Complainant/Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the above-mentioned RTI applications and instant complaint/second appeal and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
31. During the hearing, the Respondent has volunteered to facilitate inspection of relevant records to the Complainant/Appellant in their office and take copies on payment of requisite fees.
With respect to file No. CIC/INDAC/C/2024/624382:
32. The Complainant/Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant complaint and submitted that information which is related to him has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
33. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have categorically informed the Complainant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
34. However, during the hearing, the Complainant modified his query by limiting the same to the information pertaining to his own case and in response, the Respondent, during the hearing, volunteered to provide information to the Complainant which is related to him.
Decision:
With respect to file No. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/602556:
35. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information from the PIO within stipulated period as per the RTI Act. The Respondent agreed that no reply/information was provided to the Complainant.
Page 19 of 2536. The Commission observes that this a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and appears mala fide intent on the part of the then PIO for obstructing the information under the RTI Act. However, during the hearing, the Respondent volunteered to now provide reply/information to the Complainant as per his RTI application.
37. The Respondent is advised to fulfil his commitment made during the hearing by providing reply/information to the Complainant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, through speed post.
38. The then PIO is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that reply/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period as per the RTI Act. The present PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before the Controlling Authority of the then PIO.
With respect to file No. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/604246:
39. Upon perusal of records and after considering the above-mentioned submissions of the Complainant, finds liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
Accordingly, the above-mentioned complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.
With respect to file Nos. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/639803 & CIC/UTPON/C/2024/623877:
40. The Commission observes from perusal of records that the main premise of the instant complaints were non-receipt of desired information from the Respondent. The Commission observes that the PIO provided point- wise reply/information to the Complainant as per his RTI applications.
41. It is an admitted fact that the PIO 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 Complainant. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advises/rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority.
Page 20 of 2542. Further, the information which is related to personal information of third party cannot be provided to the Complainant under the RTI Act.
43. The Commission further observes that the PIO has given a response to the Complainant informing him the factual position in the matter within stipulated period as per the RTI Act
44. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the PIO and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
45. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
46. In view of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
With respect to file Nos. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/623878 and CIC/UTPON/C/2024/622694:.
47. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant/Appellant in the instant Complaint/second appeal was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that Page 21 of 25 factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Complainant/Appellant on his above-mentioned RTI application.
48. Now, being Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
49. However, taking the contentions of the Complainant/Appellant as stated in his complaint/second appeal and taking liberal view in the matter and also as volunteered by the Respondent, the Commission directs the PIO to facilitate an opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records as sought in the above-mentioned RTI application (information which is related to the case of the Complainant) to the Complainant/Appellant or their authorized representative on a mutually decided date & time within six weeks. The Respondent is further directed to arrange all relevant files (as per RTI application) at one place before calling the Complainant/Appellant for inspection. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Complainant/Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record, the PIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party Page 22 of 25 information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
50. Copy of documents that the Complainant/Appellant or their authorized representative desires during the inspection shall be provided by the PIO on payment of requisite fees as per RTI Rules.
51. No further relief can be granted in the matter.
With respect to file No. CIC/INDAC/C/2024/624382:
52. The Commission observes from perusal of records that the main premise of the instant complaint was non-receipt of desired information from the Respondent. The Commission observes that the PIO provided reply/information to the Complainant as per his RTI application and as per documents available on their record.
53. It is an admitted fact that the PIO 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 Complainant. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advises/rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority. Further, the information which is personal information of third party cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
54. The Commission further observes that the PIO has given a response to the Complainant informing him the factual position in the matter within stipulated period as per the RTI Act
55. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the PIO and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
56. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v.
Page 23 of 25Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
57. The Respondent is advised to fulfil his commitment made during the hearing by providing revised reply/information to the Complainant for the part related to his own case, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, through speed post.
The above-mentioned complaints and second appeal are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 24 of 25 Copy To:
The FAA, Puducherry Distilleries Limited, R.S. No. 144 & 145, Door No. 18, Ariyapalayam Village, Villianur, Puducherry - 605110 Page 25 of 25 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)