Central Information Commission
Dipak L Rafaliya vs Ctrtc Bhubneswar on 21 January, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CTRTB/A/2024/650230
Dipak L Rafaliya .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o. MSME, Central Tool Room
and Training Centre (CTRTC),
Bhubaneswar, MSME Technology
Centre, RTI Cell, B-36, Chandaka Industrial Area,
Bhubaneswar, Odhisa-751024 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2026
Date of Decision : 20.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.08.2024
CPIO replied on : 16.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 19.09.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.11.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2024 seeking the following information:
"I am Dipak Rafaliya the proprietor of Atmiya Manufacturing, Surat, Gujarat. I need some information under the right to information act, 2005 (Government of India) as below mention point.Page 1 of 12
We had participated in tender of SFURTI Cluster named Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster (Nayagarh, Odisha). The implementing agency of this cluster is RAGHUNATH PATHAGARA (Ganjam, Odisha) and Nodal agency of this cluster is Central Tool Room And Training Centre (Bhubaneshwar, Odisha).
1. We have received purchase order from implementing agency named Raghunath Pathagara and authorized persons of CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) and Nirmal Chandra Nayak (President of Raghunath Pathagara) have properly checked all our machines and they were satisfied with the performance of all machines, so we have supplied, installed, commissioned and tested all machines as per purchase order, but why we have not received full payment till date?
2. Please also tell us when we will get our remaining payment of our supply machines at Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster (Nayagarh, Odisha)?
3. We have complained several times through email to Principal Secretary (MSME-Odisha), GM (CTTC-Bhubaneswar, Odisha) & Nirmal Chandra Nayak (President of Raghunath Pathagara) about not receiving our full payment but why have they not resolved our complaint till date?
4. Your purchase committee was completely satisfied with all the machines supplied by us, that is why you have paid us 70%, but Nirmal Chandra Nayak (President of Raghunath Pathagara) does not want to pay us the remaining amount, that is why he is deliberately harassing us by giving new reasons. We have repeatedly told this to the Principal Secretary (MSME-Odisha), GM (CTTC- Bhubaneswar, Odisha), but why have you not taken any action against him till date?
5. We want to ask you whether you have any share in the bribe that Nirmal Chandra Nayak (President of Raghunath Pathagara) is demanding from us?
6. We submitted the complaint against Nirmal Chandra Nayak (President of Raghunath Pathagara) for taking bribe to Principal Secretary (MSME-Odisha), GM (CTTC-Bhubaneswar, Odisha) along with necessary documents, but why no action has been taken against him?
7. Who is the official holding the post of Vigilance Officer in CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) now, Please provide name, designation, email id and mobile number of that official. 8. We complained about taking bribe by Nirmal Chandra Nayak (President of Raghunath Pathagara) through mail to CTTC officer Dr. Shashikant Kar Sir on 20-02-2023. So please tell us what action Dr. Shashikant Kar Sir has taken on our complaint?
9. Please provide me the detailed project report (DPR) of Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster which is being set up at Panu Sahu Patna, Dist- Nayagarh, Odisha.Page 2 of 12
10. Please provide us the names of all the officers of the Purchase Committee of Kantilo Bell Metal and Wood Cluster (Nayagadh, Odisha) with their designation, their email id and their mobile numbers.
11. On the basis of which documents of Raghunath Pathagara, CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department has appointed Raghunath Pathagara as the Implementing Agency of SFURTI Cluster named Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster organized by Ministry of MSME? Please provide us all those documents.
12. How much fee has been decided to be paid to Raghunath Pathagara for working as the implementing agency of SFURTI Cluster organized by Ministry of MSME named Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department?
13. Whether the fees payable to Raghunath Pathagara for working as implementing agency of SFURTI Cluster organized by Ministry of MSME named Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster has been paid or is it still pending by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department?
14. Please provide us the Income Tax return copy of Raghunath Pathagara for last 5 Financial years.
15. Please provide us with the minutes of meetings of all the official meetings held for the cluster named Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster (Nayagarh, Odisha) till date.
16. When Raghunath Pathagara gave us the purchase order on 03-02-2022, at that time his GST registration was cancelled, then why did he give us the purchase order?
17. Also provide me the bank statement of the account of Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster (Nayagarh, Odisha) to see the transaction details of SPV members' contribution to the cluster as per the DPR.
18. Please also give us the purchase order that Pathak Industries, Kolkata was received for Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster (Nayagarh, Odisha).
19. Please also provide us the tender document which was submitted by Pathak Industries, Kolkata for participating in the tender of Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster (Nayagarh, Odisha).
20. Till date, in how many clusters has Raghunath Pathagara been assigned the work of implementing agency by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department?Page 3 of 12
21. Please provide the list of all those clusters which was implementing by Raghunath Pathagara who has been assigned as implementing agency by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department till date.
22. Please provide detailed project report (DPR) of all the clusters in which Raghunath Pathagara who has been assigned as implementing agency by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department till date.
23. Till date, Provide the list of all tenders published till date for SFURTI Cluster by Raghunath Pathagara who has been assigned as implementing agency by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department.
24. Till date, Provide the list and company details of their participated bidders of the tenders published for SFURTI Cluster by Raghunath Pathagara who has been assigned as implementing agency by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department.
25. Please provide us the tender documents of all the bidders who participated in all tenders published by Raghunath Pathagara who has been assigned as implementing agency by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department.
26. Please provide all the purchase committee's minutes of meeting of all the tenders implemented by Raghunath Pathagara who has been assigned as implementing agency by CTTC (Bhubaneswar, Odisha) or any other MSME Department. As per the right to information act 2005, If any information sought by us is not related to your department, then please get that information from the concerned department and then give us the complete information. As per the right to information act 2005, If you don't understand anything about any information we asked or have any question regarding our mention point then you can ask us directly through phone or mail which is mentioned with this RTI.
We would like to tell you that for all the above information and details please give us your answer in detail and as per our given points, do not just tell your answer in Yes or No. Finally, I state that the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in section 6 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge and it also pertains to your office. While providing the information, the name and full address of the First Appellate Officer must be mentioned. "
I understand that under the RTI Act 2005, I am entitled to receive the information sought within a prescribed time period from the date of receipt of this application. I am also aware that as per the provisions of the Act, fees may Page 4 of 12 apply for hard copy of document as per our request. I am willing to pay any applicable fee as required. Once you have received your applicable fees, please post the hard copy of the document to my address mentioned as above. Kindly provide the information in a timely manner, keeping in mind the legal obligations under the RTI Act 2005. I would appreciate if you could acknowledge the receipt of this request and provide me with any necessary details about the fees and payment process at the earliest.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.09.2024 and returned the RTI application with the following remarks:
"The Management of CTTC, Bhubaneswar shall constitute a Committee to examine the entire case. In the process you may be required to submit some of the original documents/evidences etc."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2024. The FAA's order is not available on record.
4. On non-adjudication of First Appeal, Appellant is before Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Susanta Kumar Rout, Sr. Manager (Admin & Accounts)/ CPIO present through video conference.
5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.
7. CPIO reiterated the contents of his written statement wherein he inter alia pleaded as under:-
"1. The present appeal filed by the Appellant is wholly misconceived, untenable in law, and liable to be rejected at the threshold, as the same does not disclose any violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
2. At the outset, it is submitted that the present second appeal is a misuse of the RTI mechanism, seeking redressal of contractual and payment-related grievances, which are expressly beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Commission.Page 5 of 12
3. CTTC, Bhubaneswar is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, functioning under the administrative control of the Ministry of MSME. Government of India, and was established in the year 1991.
4. CTTC, Bhubaneswar has been designated as Central Nodal Agency (CNA) for implementation of certain Government of India schemes, including the Scheme of Fund for Regeneration of Traditional Industries (SFURTI Scheme). The Office of the Additional Secretary & Development Commissioner (MSME) is considered as the Project Management Unit (PMU) for overseeing such projects. However, CTTC, Bhubaneswar, as Central Nodal Agency (CNA), has been assigned only the task of fund management, monitoring, and disbursement within the purview of the Government Financial Rules (GFR) of Government of India. A copy of the revised SFURTI Scheme Guidelines is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A.
5. Under the SFURTI Scheme, the role of the CNA is strictly limited and does not extend to procurement, execution of contracts, performance evaluation of vendors, or settlement of contractual disputes.
6. The Kantilo Bell Metal & Wood Cluster is an SFURTI project involving the following stakeholders:
a. Implementing Agency (IA): Mis Raghunath Pathagara, Ganjam, Odisha (NGO) b. Technical Agency (TAX KIIT Technical Business Incubator c. Central Nodal Agency (CNA): CTTC, Bhubaneswar The tender process, award of work, execution of contract, inspection, acceptance, and payment obligations were entirely within the domain of the Implementing Agency (IA). The Appellant, being the proprietor of Atmiya Manufacturing, was appointed as a vendor contractor by the IA and not by CTTC, Bhubaneswar. In other words, CTTC, Bhubaneswar has neither awarded the contract nor is a party to the contractual obligations forming the subject matter of the Appellant's grievance. A copy of the purchase order placed by the IA on the Appellant is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-B.
8. The RTI application, containing 26 questions, is essentially in the nature of a contractual and payment-related grievance arising out of a transaction between the Appellant and the Implementing Agency (IA), which is a non- governmental organisation and not a public authority under the RTI Act, and therefore wholly outside the control and custody of CTTC, Bhubaneswar.
9. The CPIO duly replied to the RTI application vide communication dated 16.09.2024, clearly explaining the limits of information available with CTTC, Bhubaneswar. The First Appellate Authority also addressed the grievance-cum- RTI appeal vide letter dated 04.03.2025, reiterating that the Appellant's issues Page 6 of 12 are grievance-based and contractual in nature. A copy of email dated 04.03.2025 is annexed as ANNEXURE-C. Copy of the speed post receipt is attached as ANNEXURE-D.
10. The Appellant has raised 26 questions, a substantial number of which are vague, speculative, misleading and beyond the scope of the RTI Act. It is respectfully submitted that the queries under Sl. No. 1, 3, 4 and 6 pertain to questions in the nature of "why", thereby seeking reasons, explanations and justifications for decisions and actions allegedly taken or not taken. Several other queries demand interpretation, clarification and analytical responses, which are impermissible under the RTI framework.
Further, the queries at St. Nos. 2, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26 seek documents and information which are neither held nor controlled by CTTC Bhubaneswar, but pertain to various third parties, inclading the Implementing Agency Since CTTC. Bhubaneswar was neither the tendering neor the purchasing authority and had not placed the purchase onder, and since the Appellant was fully aware of the limited role of CTEC as CNA, the issues raised are purely contractual and grievance-oriented against the said third-parties and cannot be agrated through the RTI mechanism against CTTC, Bhubaneswar
12. It is further submitted that queries under 11, 12, 13, 20, 21 and 22 seek internal, confidential and sensitive information relating to the Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), Minutes of Meetings and other internal project documents, as well as third-party information, to which the Appellant has no legal entitlement under the RTI Act.
13. It is further submitted that one of the queries under Sl. No. 7 raised by the Appellant pertains to the identity of the Vigilance Officer of CTTC, Bhubaneswar. The said information is already available in the public domain, including on the official website of CTTC/Ministry of MSME, and is not information exclusively held by the CPIO.
14. Furthermore, the questions under Sl. No. 5 & 8 alleging demand of bribe, seeking confirmation of any "share" therein and demand of action against a third-party do not seek any information available on record with the public authority. The query is based on an unverified allegation and seeks a speculative response, which falls outside the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The RTI mechanism cannot be used to level accusations or seek explanations regarding alleged misconduct.
15. It is a settled position of law that where the information sought does not form part of the records of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law, rule or regulation, the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect, collate or Page 7 of 12 create such information. A public authority is also not required to furnish information involving drawing of inferences or undertaking analytical exercises,
16. The Act does not mandate finishing of ary advice or opinion. The reference to "opinion" or "advice" in Section 2(1) of the RTI Act is confined only to such material already available on record. Any advice, guidance or opinion if provided is purely voluntary and cannot be construed as a statutory obligation.
17. The definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act does not include answers to questions beginning with "why", as such queries seek reasons and justifications, which fall beyond the purview of RTI Act.
18. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that even though the RTI Act did not mandate disclosure of contractual or payment- related explanations, the CPIO, in a bona fide and transparent manner, furnished such limited information as it was available on record with CTTC, Bhubaneswar.
19. In accordance with Clause 6.3 of the revised SFURTI Scheme Guidelines, 90% of the cost of Hard Interventions is payable by the Government of India through the CNA, and the remaining 10% is payable by the IA. The original purchase order Value was Rs. 70,30,000/-, which was subsequently revised to Rs.54,30,000/- due to return of defective machinery. A copy of email dated 26.12.2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-E
20. As per the Payment Terms of the Purchase Order, 80% of the Contract Value on supply of the complete set of machinery, equipments and its accessories as per the order in full in good condition at the CFC site. The balance 20% was supposed to be released in two phases ie. 15% of the contract value on successful completion of performance test and the balance 5% and Security Deposit only after satisfactory completion of the entire contract and submission of 8% of the total value of contract valid for 1 year towards performance guarantee.
21. Against delivery of the machines the payment was supposed to be made to the supplier ie 80% of the order value ie. Rs.43,44,000 Out of which 90% (ie Rs 39,0000) shall be paid by Govt of India and 10% (Rs.4.34,400) by the Implementing Agency (IA). Till now Rs.39,09,600/- (contribution of Govt. Of India) has already been paid to the supplier which is also acknowledged by the supplier vide email dated 26.12.2023. A copy of email dated 26.12.2023 is annexed as ANNEXURE-E. The balance Rs.4,34,400/- is not yet released by the IA citing performance reasons due to the non-response of the supplier, they have failed to produce good quality material from the supplied machines for which they are failed to function the wood activities of the cluster." A copy of email dated 04.03.2025 is annexed as ANNEXURE-C Page 8 of 12
22. The reasons of non-payment of the received from the IA through their email dated 03.03.2025 have already been forwarded to the Appellant vide letter No. CTTC/BBS/A&A/Admin/121/02/2046, dated 04.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-D: Speed post receipt dt.05/03/2025) by the First Appellate Authority with a request to solve the problems being faced by the IA at the earliest possible. All of this information has been supplied out of voluntary discretion, even though the RTI Act did not warrant for such disclosure.
23. Thus, the record clearly establishes that the CPIO has fully complied with the RTI Act and has also voluntarily disclosed all available information, notwithstanding that the Appellant's, queries were largely grievance-driven and contractual in nature.
24. Therefore, the present second appeal deserves to be dismissed as an abuse of the RTI mechanism, seeking to convert this Hon'ble Commission into a forum for contractual adjudication, which is impermissible in law."
8. CPIO clarified that the Appellant through the RTI application in question tried to redress his grievance regarding non-release of 10% of consideration against the supply of machines by his organization, however, against 80 % of consideration which is Rs. 43,44,000/- , 90 % of its value was already remitted to the Appellant by Implementing Agency (IA) amounting to Rs. 39,09,600/- and it also acknowledged by the Appellant through email dated 26.12.2023. (copy enclosed in the written statement). Balance of Rs. 4,34,400/- was not released to the Appellant which was due to no-response from him against the multiple reminders from the IA regarding defective machines supplied by the Appellant's manufacturing unit. CPIO further added that even otherwise, the grievance of the Appellant cannot be ventilated under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. As regards response to RTI application in question is concerned, factual information was already informed to the Appellant initially and now through the latest written statement, a copy of which was shared with the Appellant through e-mail.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the CPIO and perusal of the records observes, at the outset, t The Commission, at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that information sought by the Appellant through the RTI application in question is cumbersome and appears to be voluminous in nature and does Page 9 of 12 not even conform to the word limit of 500 words, as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012.
10. Even if, the Commission was to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant through the Second Appeal, it cannot lose its sight of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. The Commission, in this regard, relied on a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr.v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] in which is was held that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of Page 10 of 12 discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
11. However, ignoring the above aspect, the CPIO in his wisdom made efforts to give point-wise reply to the Appellant at the initial stage and also through his latest written submission, which is in line with the provisions of the RTI Act.
12. It is also noteworthy that the issue raised by the Appellant through the RTI Application in question appears purely to be a matter of grievance which cannot be resolved under the mandate of RTI Act, 2005. At this juncture, the Commission finds it relevant to rely on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
13. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. However, having observed that as far as RTI application in question is concerned suitable reply in terms of the RTI Act, 2005 was furnished by the Page 11 of 12 CPIO vide letter dated 16.09.2024 and latest by his written statement dated Nil. Accordingly, the same is upheld and considering the absence of the Appellant during hearing to controvert the submissions of the CPIO, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter at this juncture.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Dipak Rafaliya Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)