Central Information Commission
Siddharth vs Department Of Revenue on 20 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831
SIDDHARTH .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of
Revenue, Adjudicating
Authority, PMLA, Room No. 26,
4rth Floor, Jeevan Deep
Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.04.2026
Date of Decision : 17.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The instant matter is listed for hearing on priority basis in compliance with the
order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP No.
1987/2026.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.05.2025
CPIO replied on : 19.05.2025 and 02.06.2025
First appeal filed on : 05.06.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.08.2025
CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831 Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.05.2025 (offline) seeking the following information:
"I am filing this application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek the following information relating to the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before the Adjudicating Authority:
1. How many Original Complaints have been filed under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for confirmation of Provisional Attachment Orders by the Enforcement Directorate from the date of establishment of the Adjudicating Authority till 30.04.2025?
2. How many Original Complaints filed under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for confirmation of Provisional Attachment Orders by the Enforcement Directorate are pending with the Adjudicating Authority as on 30.04.2025?
3. How many Original Complaints filed under Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for confirmation of Provisional Attachment Orders by the Enforcement Directorate have been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority as on 30.04.2025?
4. How many Provisional Attachment Orders have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from the date of establishment of the Adjudicating Authority till 30.04.2025?
5. Please provide a list of all Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of law appointed since its establishment till 30.04.2025, along with their names, designation, and tenure.
6. Please provide a list of all Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of finance appointed since its establishment till 30.04.2025, along with their names, designation, and tenure.
7. Please provide a list of all Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of accountancy appointed since its establishment till 30.04.2025, along with their names, designation, and tenure.CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831 Page 2 of 7
8. Please provide a list of all Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of administration appointed since its establishment till 30.04.2025, along with their names, designation, and tenure,
9. How many times has the recruitment process been initiated for appointment of Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of law since its establishment till 30.04.2025?
10. Please provide dates of office memorandum released for recruitment process mentioned in question no. 9?
11. How many times has the recruitment process been initiated for appointment of Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of finance since its establishment till 30.04.2025?
12. Please provide dates of office memorandum released for recruitment process mentioned in question no. 11?
13. How many times has the recruitment process been initiated for appointment of Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of administration since its establishment till 30.04.2025?
14. Please provide dates of office memorandum released for recruitment process mentioned in question no. 13?
15. How many times has the recruitment process been initiated for appointment of Members of Adjudicating Authority from the field of accountancy since its establishment till 30.04.2025?
16. Please provide dates of office memorandum released for recruitment process mentioned in question no. 15?"
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 19.05.2025 stating as under:
"Please find enclosed herewith an application dated 03.05.2025 of Shri Siddharth Chamber No.661,6th Floor, District Court, Faridabad Pin:
121007 under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act. 2005, received in this Adjudicating Authority, PMLA on 07.05.2025 transferring to Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue on point Nos. 9 to 16 for action as appropriate in the matter.CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831 Page 3 of 7
para wise replies are as under: -
Para 1 to 4: This information sought by you is in question form which is not covered under RTI Act, hence no information to furnish.
Para 5: The List of Members in AA under PMLA are enclosed.
Para 6: Same as above.
Para 7: Same as above.
Para 8: Same as above.
It is requested that the available information sought for in the RTI application may be furnished to the applicant directly under intimation to this Office."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.06.2025. The FAA's order is not on record. Further, the CPIO vide letter dated 02.06.2025 replied to the Appellant stating as under:
"The Appellate authority has directed to CPIO to provide the information which is available with AA, PMLA on pertaining to OC as required by appellant which is available on record as under: -
Point No 1-2758 OCs have been filed in AA, PMLA from the date of establishment of the AA PMLA till 30.04.2025 Point No 2-357 OCs are pending with the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA on 30.04.2025"
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831 Page 4 of 7
Appellant: Adv. Sahaj Karan Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant in person.
Respondent: Ms. Nasreen Bano Siddiqui, Registrar & CPIO, appeared in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 26.08.2025 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
6. The counsel of the Appellant inter alia submitted that except point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application, no information was provided to him. He pleaded that the Appellant sought only statistical data which does not constitute any third-party information or exempted information, therefore, the same should have been provided within the stipulated time. The counsel further submitted that ED uploads such information on their website then why the Respondent cannot do so in this case.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply was given to the Appellant vide letters dated 19.05.2025 and 02.06.2025 wherein statistical information available on point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. They further submitted that information sought on point Nos. 9 to 16 were transferred to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue to reply directly to the Appellant as they were the custodian of the information sought on these points. Besides, the Respondent stated that information sought at point 3 and 4 is not available in compiled form and it is to be provided it involves going through each order passed by the Adjudicatory Authority and amounts to creating information. Information sought at points Nos. 5 to 8 was also not available in complied form, compilation of the same would divert the resources of the Respondent Public Authority. Hence, they expressed their inability to provide the same to the Appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has furnished information as is available to the Appellant with CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831 Page 5 of 7 respect to point Nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. It is further noted that the information sought under point Nos. 9 to 16 was duly transferred to the concerned authority i.e., Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Appellant submitted that for the above points, he is pursuing the matter with Ministry of Finance, separately, though he claimed that he has not any information from them.
9. With regard to the remaining points, the Commission finds that the information sought by the Appellant largely requires compilation, collation, and creation of data in a manner not maintained by the Respondent Public Authority in the ordinary course of its functioning. The Respondent has categorically submitted that such information is not available in a compiled form and its collection would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.
10. In this regard, the Commission places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein it has been held as under:
"35. At this juncture, his necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses and 0) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant."
11. In view of the above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that intervention is not warranted in the matter, as the Respondent has provided the information available on record and acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831 Page 6 of 712. Notwithstanding above, the Commission observes that the CPIO, while furnishing the reply to the RTI application, failed to mention his name, designation, official contact number/email, as well as the particulars of the First Appellate Authority, which is in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the extant guidelines issued by DoPT. Such omissions defeat the spirit of transparency and accountability envisaged under the Act. Accordingly, the concerned CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future and to ensure that replies under the RTI Act are complete in all respects.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कु मार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूच ना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Department of Revenue, Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, Room No. 26, 4rth Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001 CIC/DOREV/A/2025/128831 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)