Central Information Commission
Pratishtha vs National Monuments Authority on 16 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/NMATH/A/2024/643486
Pratishtha ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Monuments
Authority, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.07.2024 FA : 26.07.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 25.07.2024 FAO : 06.08.2024 Hearing : 14.01.2026
Date of Decision: 14.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. As per Rule 21 of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains(Framing of Heritage Bye-Laws and other Functions of Competent Authority), 2011 the survey has to be conducted within 5 years of these rules coming into effect. Has Survey been conducted by the Director-General in respect of all prohibited areas of each protected monument or not? If not then for how many and in respect of which protected monuments?
2. Has Heritage -Bye laws been framed for Agra which the Competent Authority was bound to frame as per Section 20E, AMASR Act,1958 and as per Rule 22 Page 1 of 4 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains(Framing of Heritage Bye-Laws and other Functions of Competent Authority), 2011?
3. John Hessing Tomb Roman Catholic Cemetery i.e. the protected monument falls into which category as mentioned by the legislature in Schedule to National Monuments Authority (Condition of Service of Chairman and Members of the Authority and Conduct of Business) Rules,2011?
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. The matter does not pertain to HBL Section, NMA.
2. HBLs are framed for Protected and not for Town/Cities (Agra).
3. No such information is available
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and stated as under:
"..The RTI application, the reply of the CPIO and the appeal have been examined. It is held that the query at para 1 to be transferred to CPIO, Archaeological Survey of India u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 as the matter is more closely connected with their functioning (GSR 3(E) dated 27 Dec 2018 refers). Regarding Query No 2 and 3, the same have been correctly replied by CPIO.."
4. CPIO, Archaeological Survey of India, Agra Circle furnished reply dated 13.09.2024 as under:
"..With reference to the subject cited above It is to inform you that- 1-list Enclosed. (03-pages).."
5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 2 of 4Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Vernika Gupta, CPIO-cum-Consultant Conservation Architect, Shri Aby Varghese, Consultant Legal- participated in the hearing.
6. The Respondent inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant as per the records available in their office. As regards point No. 3 they averred that no information as sought by the Appellant is available in their records and accordingly the aforesaid point was responded by the PIO. They stated that the information sought at point No. 2 pertains to Archaeological Survey of India, Agra Circle. They submitted that Archaeological Survey of India, Agra Circle has furnished reply dated 13.09.2024 with respect information sought at point No. 2.
Decision:
7. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Section Officer-(RTI Section), National Monuments Authority (Ministry of Culture), 24--Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2 Pratishtha Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)