Central Information Commission
Narendar Kumar vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 1 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BECIL/A/2024/122784
Narendar Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO under RTI, Broadcast
Engineering Consultants India
Ltd., BECIL Bhawan, C-56/A-17,
Sector-62, NOIDA-201307
(Uttar Pradesh). .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025
Date of Decision : 28.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 21.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
1. On which date your company completely handover the said work to Haryana Police Housing Corporation.Page 1 of 4
File No: CIC/BECIL/A/2024/122784
2. How much CCTV camera installed entire haryana state. Please provide each station list and where you have installed the cameras.
3. Please supply information each police station camera installation.
4. Please supply information regarding date of CCTV installation at Woman police station, Dabwali.
5. Please provide me information of official name and designation for handover/take over of CCTV installation at woman police station dabwali.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.06.2024 stating as under:
(1) The information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) & 8(1)(d) of RTI act, 2005.
(2) The information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) & 8(1)(d) of RTI act, 2005.
(3) The information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(g) of RTI act, 2005.
(4) The information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(g) of RTI act, 2005.
(5) The information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(g) of RTI act, 2005.
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 05.07.2024, held as under:
Shri Narendar Kumar has preferred an Appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Against Refused Access to Information Requested sought by him vide his RTI Request Registration No. BECIL/R/E/24/00072 dt 21.05.2024. Respond has been provided by the CPIO on 19.06.2024.
I have examined the appeal and details of the said project. I find that there is no larger public interest evident in this case. Further, there is also a confidentiality clause available in the contract. As such the stand taken by the CPIO is correct. No information can be shared in this case under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 4
File No: CIC/BECIL/A/2024/122784 With the issue of this Order, the Appeal is disposed off.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Binay Kumar Tiwari, deputy General Manager/CPIO and Shri Ashish Khanna, Senior Manager- participated in the hearing.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.07.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The Respondent, while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information by the Appellant relates to contract entered between Respondent public authority and Haryana Police for installation of CCTV cameras. They averred that information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that an appropriate response has been furnished by the PIO. It is further observed that PIO has rightly invoked Section 8(1)(a) and 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act while denying the information sought.
8. It is noted that the Respondent, being a contracted agency for specific purpose engaged by the Haryana Police, holds the information in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of its principal, i.e. the Haryana Police, and therefore information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. Furthermore, the principal--the Haryana Police--falls under the jurisdiction of the State Government of Haryana. Accordingly, the actual Page 3 of 4 File No: CIC/BECIL/A/2024/122784 custodian of the information is the Haryana Police, which is the concerned State Public Authority, and any request for such information must be appropriately made to them as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. In view of foregoing, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd, BECIL Bhawan, C56/A17, Sec-62, Noida - 201307 Page 4 of 4 File No: CIC/BECIL/A/2024/122784 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)