Central Information Commission
Pradeep Kumar Upmanyu vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 13 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GGSIU/A/2024/114873
Brig. Pradeep Kumar Upmanyu (Retd.) .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
Assistant Registrar-(Estt.) & CPIO,
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Sector-16-C, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078 .....प्रतर्वतदीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025
Date of Decision : 13.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 02.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 02.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 05.01.2024 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
l. I had filed RTI application vide No. PKU/RTIB/B/109(01/1123 dated 23.11.2023 seeking information under RTI Act 2005.
2. CPIO, GGSIP University vide Ref No. GGSIPU/RTI-873612023-2413176 dated 21.12.2023 provided reply to the RTI application No. PKU/RTIB/B/109 (01/1123 dated 23.11.2023
3. The copy of RTI application No. PKU/RTIB/B/109(01/1123 dated 23.11.2023 and copy of reply provided by CPIO, GGSIP University vide Ref No. GGSIPU/RTI-873612023' 24l3l76 dated 21.12.2023 are enclosed as Annexure "A" and Annexure "B" respectively.
4. The Sub-section (4) & Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the RTI Act 2005 is reproduced below:-
(a) Sub-section (4) of Section5 of the RTI Act 2005 "The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties."
b) Sub-Section (5) of Section 5 of the RTI Act 2005 "Any Other. whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other office shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information, as the case may be"-
5. The CPIO GGSIP University is requested to provide information under the RII Act 2005 as per details as below:-
(a) The name of the Officer whose assistance has been sought under Sub Section(4) of Section 5 of the RTI Act 2005 from whom the CPI0 GGSIP University sought information pertaining to the RTI application No. PKU/RTIB/B/109/(01/1123 dated 23.11.2023.
(b) The name of the Branches/ Offices of GGSIP University where the CPIO GGSIP University had sent the RTI application No. PKU/RTIB/B/109/(01/1123 dated 23.11.2023 for obtaining Information.Page 2 of 6
(c) Certified copy of the documents sent by the CPIO GGSIP University to the Officer as stated in Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 of the RTI Act 2005 for seeking Information on the RTI application No. PKU/RTIB/B/109(01/1123 dated 23 .11.2023.
(d) Certified copy of the documents received by the CPIO GGSIP University from the Officers whose assistance was sought by the CPIO under Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 of the RTI Act 2005.
(e) Certified copy of the documents on basis of which CPIO GGSIP University has provided reply vide Ref No. GGSIPUIRTI-873612023-
2413176 dated 21.12.2023.
(f) Certified copy of the Receipt Dispatch Book of Office of CPIO vide which the CPIO GGSIP University had forwarded my RTI application No. PKU/RTIB/B/109(01/1123 dated 23.11.2023 to various Officers seeking assistance as provided under Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 of RTI Act 2005.
(g) Details of visit of Mr. Subhash Aggarwal (supposed to be consultant in GGSIP University during the period 15.12.2023 to 21.12.2023
(h) Details of visit of Mr. Subhash Aggarwal (supposed to be consultant) in the office of CPIO, GGSIP during the period 15.12.2023 to 21.12.2023.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.02.2024 stating as under:
"This is in reference to your RTI application dated 23.11.2023 (ID 8736) seeking information regarding procedure adopted for disposal of your earlier RTI application dated 23.11.2023 (ID 8736).
Information sought under query-numbers 5(a) to 5(f) are internal procedure adopted at the University for disposal of your earlier RTI application dated 23.11.2023, and may contain inputs/documents provided by concerned sections of the University which are either not required to be provided under RTI Act and/or attract exemption under some sub-section/s of section 8(l) of RTI Act. It is prerogative of responding CPIO to send final response to RTI applicant. keeping in mind provisions of RTI Act after scrutinizing inputs provided by concerned sections. As such information under query-numbers 5(a) to 5(D are Page 3 of 6 exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act. As regards query-numbers 5(g) and 5(h) are concerned, no such record is maintained at the University in respect of consultants."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 19.03.2024.
"This is an order on First Appeal No. PKU/GGSIPU/FAA/115(002/0324 dated 02.03.2024 filed by Brig. Pradeep Kumar Upmanyu, Retd. against response dated 02.02.2024 on his RTI application dated 05.01.2024 (ID 8769). The hearing for First Appeal was fixed for 19.03.2024 at 03.00 PM, where the appellant did not attend the hearing and the CPIO was present. The case was discussed. I have gone through the records. It is found that the CPIO has responded in accordance with provisions of RTI Act. No further intervention is required by First Appellate Authority. The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: He, along with Shri N. Kumar appeared in person. Respondent: Shri Naveen Bhardwaj, CPIO/Section Officer; Shri Subhash Sharma, Consultant; Shri Naveen Budhiraja, Assistant Registrar (Establishment); Shri Rajendra Samath, Section Officer; and Shri Sumit Kohli, Assistant, appeared in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.05.2024 is available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that instant RTI application was filed on the basis of the reply received from the Respondent PIO in respect of his another RTI application dated 23.11.2023 which was dealt in file No. CIC/GGSIU/A/2024/114872. However, satisfactory reply was not provided by the Respondent Public Authority. He further contended that the CPIO should have disclosed all internal communications made while processing his previous RTI request.
Page 4 of 67. The Respondent reiterated that the internal correspondence exchanged among officers during the processing of an RTI application constitutes part of the decision-making process and is fiduciary and confidential in nature. Such information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, as its disclosure could expose officials to unwarranted scrutiny or harassment. Further, it was emphasized that no record regarding the visits of the consultant, as sought in points 5(g) and 5(h), is maintained in the University.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the queries raised in the RTI application essentially relate to the internal deliberative process adopted by the University in handling an earlier RTI application. Such inter-departmental communications, notes, and correspondence exchanged among officers during the decision-making process are held in a fiduciary capacity and are protected from disclosure under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
9. In the present case, the Appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest in seeking disclosure of the internal movement or inter- departmental correspondence concerning the handling of his own RTI application. The Commission is of the view that such information does not serve the objective of promoting transparency or accountability in the functioning of the public authority but rather concerns administrative functioning relating to RTI disposal. Further, the Commission concurs with the CPIO that no information can be disclosed under points 5(g) and 5(h), since "no record is maintained" is a valid response under the RTI Act.
10. The Commission also takes note of the caution expressed in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra) that the RTI Act should not be allowed to be used as a tool to harass or overburden public authorities by seeking non- essential or internal information that has no bearing on transparency or accountability in governance.
Page 5 of 611. In light of the above legal position, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent and intervention is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
FAA & REGISTRAR GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY SECTOR 16 C DWARKA NEW DELHI 110078 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)