Central Information Commission
Raj Sharma vs National Handloom Development ... on 3 September, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NHDCL/A/2024/652350
Shri Raj Sharma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Handloom Development Corporation
Limited
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2025
Date of Decision : 29.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.09.2024
PIO replied on : 18.09.2024
First Appeal filed on : 23.09.2024
First Appellate Order on : 18.10.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.09.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Contract Name: TOILET REPAIR & RENOVATION WORK OF HO BUILDING AT HHEC, UYDOG MARG, SECTOR-2, NOIDA-201301 Please provide day to day movement of the bill dated 10.06.2024 to till date against the above mentioned contract The information may please give through Shri Jitender Purohit DGM F & A having mobile number 9979893060."
The CPIO, National Handloom Development Corporation Limited vide letter dated 18.09.2024 replied as under:-
" सूचना अनिकार अनिननयम, 2005 के सेक्शन 8(1) (घ) के अंतगगत सूचना उपलब्ि नहीं कराई जा सकती है |"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 18.10.2024 stated as under:-
Page 1 "The desired information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 26.08.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Mr. P.L. Singhal, Manager (Commercial) and Mr. Jitendra Purwal, GM(F&A)- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent placed on record copy of their written submission dated 26.08.2025 during course of proceedings.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the information sought relates to day-to-day movement of bill dated 10.06.2024 submitted by him for toilet repair and renovation work of head office of NHDC at Noida. He averred that information sought has been wrongly denied by the PIO under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has not been provided to the Appellant. He further sated that the bill dated 10.06.2024 was submitted by the Swagatama Enterprises for carrying out toilet repair and renovation of head office of NHDC located in Noida. They averred that bill was processed and it was noted that the amount claimed was not in accordance with the work carried out. Accordingly, it was decided to release an amount of Rs 15 lac against the claim of Rs 23.52 lac it was also decided that the bill will be checked vis-à-vis the work carried out by a Committee who will submit their report. The Committee examined the matter and submitted their observations/recommendations in the month of September 2024. Furthermore, the Appellant had approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council with his grievance regarding the non- payment of his dues by NHDC. They averred that the matter was heard by the District Magistrate, Delhi (North) and ultimately on 17.07.2025, the Hon'ble Magistrate passed an order, referring the matter to the Arbitrators for arbitration as per the contract agreement. They further submitted that the payment of bills had been under litigation before the Hon'ble MSEFC and was decided only on 17.07.2025. They averred that during the pendency of matter, no information could be furnished to the applicant as the same would have been incomplete and inconclusive.
Decision:
Commission after perusal of case records and submissions made by the parties observes that the information sought by the Appellant relates to day-
Page 2 to-day movement of bill dated 10.06.2024 submitted by him for toilet repair and renovation work of head office of NHDC at Noida. Accordingly, denial of information under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is not correct and same is unjustified. In the given circumstances, the PIO is directed to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply i.e. specifically furnish the file notings of the movement of the bill dated 10.06.2024 as submitted by the Appellant and recommendation of the committee as available in their records with regards to the instant RTI Application via speed post within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report within in one week thereafter. In doing so PIO must ensure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant and same must be redacted under section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 prior to the said disclosure. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)