Central Information Commission
Ashish Kumar Khare vs Fishery Survey Of India,Mumbai on 21 April, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/FSIMU/A/2024/645728
CIC/FSIMU/A/2024/646700
CIC/FSIMU/A/2024/646704
Ashish Kumar Khare ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Fishery Survey of India,
2nd Floor, Plot No 2A,
Unit No 12, New Fishing Harbour Complex,
Sassoon Dock, Colaba,
Mumbai-400005
Date of Hearing : 16.04.2026
Date of Decision : 20.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
The above mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the appellant &
respondents are common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are
being disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from second appeals:
Case No Date of RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA Order Second Appeal
Dated Dated
645728 22.04.2024 28.06.2024 29.07.2024 N.A 16.10.2024
646700 27.06.2024 N.A 26.08.2024 N.A 22.10.2024
646704 13.08.2024 N.A 28.08.2024 N.A 22.10.2024
Page 1 of 11
1. Second Appeal- CIC/FSIMU/A/2024/645728
Information sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.04.2024 seeking following information:
"This has reference to the Right to Information Act, 2005 and under the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I do humbly request to you kindly provide the following information along with attested copies of the records etc .:
1) Kindly provide the information, latest copies of the records, orders ete. regarding powers and duties of Officers and employees of Fishery Survey of India, HQ, Mumbai and channel of supervision and accountability in FSI, HQ, Mumbai under Section 4(1)(b) (ii) and (iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2) Kindly provide copies of the orders ,notification ,provision by which the post or designation, nomenclature of Head of the office is created in the office of the Director General of Fishery Survey of India (HQ),Mumbai along with copies of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Head of the Office in FSI(HQ),Mumbai and criteria of eligibility, experience, ete, required for holding the designation, nomenclature /post of Head of Office in FSI,HQ, Mumbai , copies of the order of the sanction of the post /designation,duties and responsibilities of the Head of Office in FSI,HQ along with the details of the appointing authority, to declare designation /post of Head of the Office in FSI,HQ,Mumbai.
3) Kindly provide copies of the orders, notification by which administrative and statutory powers delegated in respect of Officers and employees of FSI,HQ,Mumbai and in respect of Zonal Directors and Base offices to the System Analyst by the present Director General of Fishery Survey of India, Mumbai by declaring him the Head of the Office in FSI,Hq,Mumbai.
Kindly provide information in details of the powers Page 2 of 11 delegated to the System Analyst in capacity of the Head of the Office by the present DG, FSI, Mumbai.
4) Kindly provide copies of the orders, notification or records of powers of the present Director General, FSI, Mumbai to create the post/designation, nomenclature of the Head of the Office in FSI, HQ, Mumbai and powers to delegate/re- delegate the administrative and statutory powers in respect of Officers and employees of the FSI,HQ,Mumbai and Base Offices to the System Analyst by declaring him Head of Office or giving him the designation/nomenclature, as the case may be , of the Head of the Office in FSI,HQ,Mumbai.
5) Kindly provide copies of the orders by which charge of Sr.Administratvie Officer was given to any officer /employee or to the System Analyst along the copies of the decision making process to declare the head of office to the System Analyst , given charge of Sr.Adminsitrative Officer, if any either to the System Analyst or any other officer.
6) Kindly provide the information regarding the reason for the decision of the present Director General for not considering my case for giving charge of the post of Sr.Administrative officer when the case of non feeder category officer/employee was considered and charge of the Sr.Administratvie Officer is given to the System Analyst, if any.
7) Kindly provide information or copy of the records, if any, by which either oral or in writing request is made by the System Analyst to declare him or designate him as Head of Office in FSI, HQ, Mumbai or handover the charge of the post of Sr. Administrative Officer by the present Director General, FSI, Mumbai.
8) Kindly provide details of the administrative and statutory powers of the Sr. Administrative Officer, FSI,HQ are delegated to the System Analyst by declaring him as Head of office in FSI, HQ, Mumbai by the present Director General, FSI, Mumbai along with copies of decision making process by Page 3 of 11 adopting which such powers are delegated to the System Analyst".
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.06.2024 stating as under:
"Sub: Furnishing of information under Right to Information Act in First Appeal in RTI Application dated 22/04/2024 - Reg संदभ / Ref. 1.आपका दनांक 22/04/2024 का आवेदन(रिज े शन नं.651) /
1. Your Application dated 22/04/2024 (Registration No.651).
2. First Appeal dated 11.06.2024 I am to refer to the RTI application dated 22.04.2024 (Regn.No.651) and inform that the Application does not have any larger public interest and purely related to service matter/organizational functionality. Till date, near about 39 RTI applications (including 13 court cases) are filed by you that are purely related to service matters/grievances. However, all are replied to upkeep the objective of RTI Act and to maintain utmost transparency, which is not understood by the Applicant. It is requested that the Applicant may approach the administration for resolving his grievance in future".
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on 29.07.2024. The FAA order is not available on the record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 09.04.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record which states that after receipt of the RTI application dated 22.04.2024, the Director General, FSI on 04.06.2024 requested the Ministry of Fishery, Animal Husbandry & Dairying and the Central Information Commission to issue necessary directives/guidance for further action to be taken against the appellant, as he was filing RTI applications on each and every act of the HoD as well as filing court cases (39 RTI applications and 13 court cases) that are badly affecting the day to day work as well as huge expenditure on the public exchequer in dealing the court cases. In response the Ministry advised this office to assign duties to Shri Ashish Kumar Khare other than translation work so Page 4 of 11 that he may not have enough time to make RTI application or to file court cases. The CPIO vide reply dated 28.06.2024 informed that the application of Shri Khare does not have any larger public interest and purely related to service matter/organizational functionality and no action was taken.
Copy of written submissions is not found endorsed to the appellant.
2. Second Appeal - CIC/FSIMU/A/2024/646700 Information sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2024 seeking the following information:
"This has reference to the Right to Information Act,2005 and under the provisions of the same ,I do humbly request to you kindly provide the following information :
1) Kindly provide copy of the orders, instructions, rules, provisions or any other material documents available in the records of the office of the Director General, Fishery Survey of India, Mumbai under which it is mandatory to submit copy of the visa for visiting abroad and copy of the transit visa before leaving the Country by the Central Government employee.
2) Kindly provide the information regarding action taken on my representation dated 01.03.2024 addressed to the Joint Secretary, RSB, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai along with attested copies of the note sheet and copy of forwarding letter from the office if any.
3) Kindly provide the reason of the decision of the Director General, Fishery Survey of India, Mumbai, if any, taken for not forwarding the representation dated 01.03.2024 to the Joint Secretary, RSB, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai along with copy of the note sheet".
The CPIO reply is not available on the record.
Page 5 of 11Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on 26.08.2024. The FAA order is not available on the record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 09.04.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record which states that the reply was not submitted to the RTI Application, as the details are available in the DOPT website. The same was orally intimated to the official. Further permission was also granted and leave was sanctioned vide letter dated 26.06.2024 for visiting abroad. The representation dated 01.03.2024 by appellant was addressed to the Joint Secretary, RSB, Aaykar Bhavan, which was put up in the file. Apart from the representation, appellant also submitted a request for a 10-day special CL to visit Chennai to participate in the Tennis tournaments. The matter was also filed and placed for approval by the competent authority along with the representation dated 01.03.2024.
Copy of written submissions is not found endorsed to the appellant.
3. Second Appeal- CIC/FSIMU/A/2024/646704 Information sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.08.2024 seeking the following information:
"I submitted a request letter dated 08.08.24 regarding inspection of file and record, however, no reply received. Hence,l am submitting this request under the RTI Act,2005 and humbly request that I may kindly be permitted to see, inspect the following records and permission to take photocopies of records, documents etc. Since after retirement of the System Analyst, no information regarding CPIO/APIO is available, therefore, I am submitting this request to you.
1. The action taken on my application dated 27.06.2024 for sp.cl in participation in sports till 08.08.24, related to the decision-making process file, records etc. Page 6 of 11
2. The file no.16-1/2022 E.III may kindly be permitted to see and to inspect
3. The records, files related to fixation of pay after grant of MACP in the year 2024
4. The files, records of the decision-making process of transfer of employees during 01.03.24 to 12.08.24 along with records communication received from other public Authorities including Ministry and afterwards correspondences related files and records".
The CPIO reply is not available on the record.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on 28.08.2024. The FAA order is not available on the record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 09.04.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record in which he is asking for permission to inspect records and take photocopies. He has requested permission to inspect the records on 16.08.2024. A mail was received from the appellant with the subject request for inspection of records under RTI Act-2025. However, no fee was submitted along with the request, hence no reply was provided to him. However, based on the application submitted on 27.06.2024, the Competent Authority has denied to grant of special casual leave vide letter No. 16-1/2022 E.III dated 08.08.2024 to the official based on the direction/instruction from the Ministry. Later, on the repeated demand from the official, the file was also shown him in later date.
Copy of written submissions is not found endorsed to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Ashish Kumar Khare Respondent: Mr. Dharam Veer Singh, Director Engineer, CPIO, Fishery Survey of India Page 7 of 11
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
5. The appellant inter alia submitted that against the RTI application dated 22.04.2024, instead of providing the requested information, the respondent CPIO merely made general remarks regarding the nature of the queries. With regard to the RTI application dated 27.06.2024 and 13.08.2024 no reply was provided at all. The appellant further contended that instead of discharging their statutory obligations under the RTI Act, the respondent authority chose to file complaints against him before the Ministry and even before the Commission. Also, the copies of the written submissions to the Commission have not been served with him.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant is a habitual RTI applicant and has been filing multiple RTI applications and court cases. It was further submitted that a reply to the RTI application dated 22.04.2024 was provided.
However, during the course of the hearing, the respondent expressed willingness to provide appropriate replies to all the RTI applications in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the present matter pertains to Second Appeals arising out of three RTI applications dated 22.04.2024, 27.06.2024, and 13.08.2024.
The Commission notes that although in response to the RTI application dated 22.04.2024, a reply dated 28.06.2024 was furnished by the respondent CPIO. However, the Commission notes that instead of furnishing point-wise information in accordance with the RTI Act, the respondent CPIO had merely stated that the information sought pertains to service matters and lacks larger public interest. The Commission observes that denial of information must be strictly in accordance with the exemption provisions under the RTI Act and it must also be duly justified. However, in the reply dated 28.06.2024 there is a blanket denial of information by the respondent CPIO.
Page 8 of 11Further, the Commission notes that with regard to the RTI applications dated 27.06.2024 and 13.08.2024, no reply has been provided to the appellant, on the ground that the appellant is habitual in filing RTI application and court cases.
The Commission also observes that instead of providing reply to the RTI applications, the respondent public authority was engaged in correspondence with the Ministry of Fishery and with the Commission vide letter dated 04.06.2024, seeking action against the appellant. Such an approach is not in line with the spirit and objective of the RTI Act, which is aimed at promoting transparency and accountability.
In view of the submissions made during the hearing to furnish reply against RTI applications and taking a lenient view, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the respondent CPIO for issuing an unsustainable and blanket denial of the RTI application dated 22.04.2024 and for failing to provide any reply to the RTI applications dated 27.06.2024 and 13.08.2024 within the stipulated time. These lapses reflect a serious disregard for the statutory responsibilities entrusted under the RTI Act.
The Commission also takes note of the submissions made by the respondent during the hearing, wherein it was contended that the appellant is a habitual RTI applicant and has filed multiple RTI applications and court cases. In this regard the Commission is of the view that the respondent CPIO is expected to deal with each RTI application on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
However, the appellant should also take note of Supreme Court decision in the case of R.C. Jain Vs. DTC, with respect to RTI applications which are repetitive and harassing in nature had observed as follows:
"Repetitive use of RTI an abuse: 5. The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act, by a disgruntled employee.
6. The respondent officers made fervent appeals to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about Page 9 of 11 individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied."
Accordingly, the Commission directs the respondent CPIO, Fishery Survey of India, Mumbai to re-examine all the three RTI applications dated 22.04.2024, 27.06.2024, and 13.08.2024 and provide a point-wise reply to the appellant along with a copy of written submissions dated 09.04.2026 as filed before the Commission, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. It is made clear that any non- compliance with these directions may attract penal action under RTI Act, 2005. FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.
With the observations and directions, the instant Second Appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) date: 20.04.2026 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Page 10 of 11 Addresses of the Parties:
1.The CPIO Fishery Survey of India, 2nd Floor, Plot No 2A, Unit No 12, New Fishing Harbour Complex, Sassoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai-400005
2. FAA, RTI Fishery Survey of India, 2nd Floor, Plot No 2A, Unit No 12, New Fishing Harbour Complex, Sassoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai-400005
3.Mr. Ashish Kumar Khare Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)