Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vikas Vishwakarma vs Gnctd on 23 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      ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/123270

 Vikas Vishwakarma                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
 CPIO
 SDM (Kanjhawala),
 Revenue Department,
 GNCTD                                                     ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

                                                              SA     : 21.05.2024
 RTI : 17.09.2023              FA     : 31.10.2023
                                                              resubmitted on 17.07.2024
 CPIO : 19.09.2023             FAO : 21.02.2024               Hearing : 13.01.2026


Date of Decision: 22.01.2026

                                     CORAM
                Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
                                     ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.09.2023, before the CPIO, O/o Chief Minister's Office, GNCTD, seeking information as under:

"There is a structure (building) which had been constructed by some government authority few years back. This structure does not have any name written on its premises. It is located outer side of Tatesar Village. The complete address of this structure is- Tatesar village, Kanjhawala Qutub Garh road, Opposite Sangopangvec Vidyapeeth Arsh Gurukul, Jaunti, Tatesar, North West Delhi, Delhi-110081.

Dear PIO, Page 1 of 3 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/123270

1. Please provide details about total cost incurred on the construction of above given structure and its compound.

2. Please provide the name of the person and government authority accountable for maintenance of above given structure.

3. Please provide the tender copy and agreement copy with private entity in case of maintenance charge of above structure given to a private entity."

2. The CPIO & SDM (Kanjhawala), Revenue Department, GNCTD replied to the RTI Application on 19.09.2023, as under:

"The requisite information is not available in this office"

3. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2023, before the FAA, Revenue Department, GNCTD. The FAA vide order dated 21.02.2024 held as under:

"3. Heard the submissions and gone through the records, I find that the PIO/SDM (Kanjhawala), has provided the information to the appellant but the appellant is not satisfied with the information provided. Therefore, PIO/SDM(Kanjhawala), (North West) is hereby directed to provide complete information to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order as per available office record other than third party information. Further, the applicant is directed to visit the office under the intimation to PIO for inspection of records."

4. Aggrieved with the non-compliance of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.05.2024.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person. On behalf of the Respondent, Yashish Kumar, Junior Assistant & Representative of CPIO, O/o SDM (Mundka), attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the reply of the CPIO and prayed for relief to be ordered.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO provided an appropriate reply to the instant RTI Application vide their letter dated 19.09.2023 as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It is observed further that, in a strict sense, the Appellant's RTI Application is vague in nature and does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The FAA appears to have asked the CPIO to provide the 'complete information' on the simple premise that the Appellant found the reply of 19.09.2023 to be unsatisfactory, but neither any observation was made in respect of the nature of the RTI queries nor any deficiency was pointed out in the CPIO's reply. For the said reason, the FAA's order is found to be bad in law and the instant second appeal, primarily arising out of the non-compliance of the FAA's order does not thereby warrant any intervention.

9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 22.01.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/123270 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)