Central Information Commission
Aruna Kumar vs University Of Delhi on 11 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Four Cases.
(1) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/646171
(2) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/639811
(3) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/624514
(4) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/118068
Aruna Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
THE CPIO
ATMA RAM SANATAN DHARMA COLLEGE,
RTI CELL, DELHI UNIVERSITY, DHAULA KUAN,
NEW DELHI -110021 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.03.2026, 29.04.2026
Date of Interim Decision : 05.03.2026
Date of Final Decision : 04.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Note - The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together
for disposal through common order as the parties are common and the issue
raised by the Appellant in the Appeals are identical in nature.
(1) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/646171
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.05.2025
CPIO replied on : 03.06.2025
First appeal filed on : 03.08.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Page 1 of 19
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the date of the beginning of the construction on the second floor of the ARSD College Building.
2. Please provide the date of completion of the construction on the second floor of the ARSD College Building.
3. Please provide a copy of the building map approved by the MCD for constructing second floor on ARSD College Building.
4. Please provide a copy of the safety certificate issued by the competent authority for the use of Second floor of the college after its completion.
5. Please provide copies of the tenders/bids issued for the construction of Second Floor on ARSD College Building.
6. Please provide total expenditure incurred for constructing second floor on ARSD College Building.
7. Please provide name of the fund used for construction of Second Floor on ARSD College Building.
8. Please provide copies of the work orders awarded for the construction of Second Floor of ARSD College Building along with all annexures.
9. Please provide copies of the Building Committee Minutes for the construction of Second Floor of ARSD College Building along with all annexures.
10. Please provide copy of the Governing Body Minutes where approval for construction of Second Floor on ARSD College Building granted."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.06.2025 stating as under:
"1. No such construction was carried out on the second floor of college building.
2. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
3. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
4. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
5. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
6. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
7. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
8. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
9. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1
10. Not applicable in light of the point no. 1"
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.08.2025. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 2 of 194. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/639811 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.05.2025 CPIO replied on : 20.06.2025 First appeal filed on : 01.07.2025 First Appellate Authority's order : NA 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the list of Non - Teaching Staff selected and appointed on Daily wages since 2017 till date.
2. Please provide the designation of the above-referred staff in point no.1.
3. Kindly provide copies of the Recruitment Rules of the University of Delhi against which the staff selected as referred in point no. 1
4. Pl provide qualifications of the staff referred in point 1
5. Kindly provide copies of the notices/advertisements/tenders published on the College website/Government e Marketplace (GeM) or any other Government platform for selection/appointment of staff referred in point no. 1
6. Kindly provide copies of the Governing Body/Chairman/Chairperson approval for the appointments referred in point no. 1.
7. Kindly provide copies of the results of the exam tests conducted to recruit the staff referred in point no. 1.
8. Kindly provide copies of the appointment letters issued to the selected staff referred in point no. 1."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.06.2025 stating as under:
"1 Staff appointed on daily wage basis are casual staff and they are changed as per requirement. They are engaged for specific needs often on short terms or project basis.Page 3 of 19
2 Such staff are referred as daily wage staff only. 3 Daily Wage staff are appointed for a short period as per requirement in accordance with Govt. of India and Govt. of NCT of Delhi guidelines. 4 Information qualifies as third-party information under 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
5 Not applicable in the light of point no. 1 6 Not applicable in the light of point no. 1 7 Not applicable in the light of point no. 1 8 Not applicable in the light of point no. 1"
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2025. The FAA order is not on record.
8. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/624514 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.02.2025 CPIO replied on : NA First appeal filed on : 30.03.2025 First Appellate Authority's order : NA 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2025 seeking the following information:
"(i) Provide copies of the time-table allotted to Prof. Gyantosh Kumar Jha, Principal of Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College during the last five years (Academic years 2020-21 to 2024-25)
(ii) Provide copies of the attendance record submitted by Prof. Gyantosh Kumar Jha, Principal of Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College during the last five years (Academic years 2020-21 to 2024-25)
(iii) Provide proof of the display of the Time Tables of Prof. Gyantosh Kumar Jha, Principal of Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College during the last five years (Academic years 2020-21 to 2024-25) on the College Website or elsewhere."
10. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.03.2025. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 4 of 1911. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/118068 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.12.2024 CPIO replied on : 07.01.2025 First appeal filed on : 24.01.2025 First Appellate Authority's order : 21.02.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.12.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. Name of the Housekeeping Agency presently operating in ARSD College
2. Copy of the initial contract awarded to the present housekeeping agency
3. How many times the contract has been extended with the housekeeping agency
4. Copy of all the renewed contracts with the housekeeping agency.
5. Copy of the committee minutes that extended the contract with the housekeeping agency."
13. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.01.2025 stating as under:
"Reply by PIO-
I am enclosing herewith the requisite information received from the concerned department to your request.
As regards, Point No. 2,4 & 5 The information sought by you in your RTI application is exempt from disclosure under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, the details being third party information."
"Reply by concerned department-
Point No. 1 -M/s. VPSSR Facilities Point No. 3-04 times"Page 5 of 19
14. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 21.02.2025, stated as under-
"Point no. 1 & 3: The PIO has already supplied the requisite information vide letter reference no. 98 dated 07.01.2025.
Point no. 2 & 4: Reply received from the concerned department enclosed. Point no. 5: No infirmity found in the order passed by the PIO."
15. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant facts emerged during hearing on 05.03.2026:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Aruna Kumar, present in person. Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, PIO represented by Shri Nikunj Arora, AR present in person.
16. Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that complete specific information has not been provided by the CPIO and FAA till date. Hence, this Second Appeals before the Commission.
17. A written request for all these Appeals have been received from the PIO, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ease of reference -
1. That the notices of hearing dated 05.02.2026 issued by the Dy. Registrar of the office of the Hon'ble information Commissioner, received in the college vide dairy no. 43 dated 10.02.2026, 44 dated 10.02.2026, 45 dated 10.02.2026 and 46 dated 10.02.2026.
2. That the above said notices (Copy attached as Annexure-1) have been found with no attachments to trace the instant RTI applications of the appellant, replies of CPIO, Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College. The office of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner is kindly requested to please provide the relevant attachments for the proper replies to the respondent.
3. That the Mid Semester Break (Vacations) of University of Delhi is scheduled from 1st March, 2026 (Sunday) to 8thn march, 2026 (Sunday). (Copy of Academic Calendar-2025-26 is attached as Annexure-2). The Page 6 of 19 Hon'ble Information Commissioner, is kindly requested to reschedule the date of hearing after 08.03.2026.
PRAYER In view of the above mentioned submission and facts, it is most respectfully and humbly prayed that:
(a) That the answering respondent i.e. CPIO, Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College, University of Delhi may kindly be provided with the complete relevant attachments for the submission of replies of the instant RTI applications filed by the Appellant.
(b) That The office of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner may kindly reschedule the date of hearing after the Semester Break of University of Delhi i.e. after 08.03.2026.
(c) Or pass any such order as the Hon'ble Commission may deem fit as per the facts and circumstances of the case."
18. Ld. Counsel of the PIO relied on the averred request and stated that hearing notice of today's matters were received in their office without any attachment including but not restricted to copy of RTI applications under reference, CPIO's reply, First Appeal, FAA's order and copy of respective Second Appeals. Ld. Counsel for the PIO pleaded that in the absence of relevant records, he will not be in a position to defend these matters. Hence, he prayed the Commission to adjourn the matters and facilitate the copy of all requisite documents pertaining to these Appeals.
Interim Order on 05.03.2026:
19. Heard the parties.
20. In the light of the submission tendered by the PIO, the Commission, at the outset, finds that the PIO is not in receipt of the relevant records of the instant Appeals filed by the Appellant and therefore, he expressed his inability to put forth his submission in proper manner in the absence of documents.
21. In view of the above and considering the principles of natural justice, the Commission, deems it fit, that a copy of entire records of the instant Appeals be served to the CPIO by the Registry within two days from the date of this order. Upon receipt of it, Shri Ashok Kumar, PIO shall file his response along with supporting documents, if any, before the Commission with a copy served to the Appellant, free of cost within one week, thereafter.
Page 7 of 1922. The instant Second Appeals stand posted for final hearing, accordingly.
23. The Registry is directed to issue fresh hearing notice to the parties of early date.
The Appeals are reserved for final orders.
Relevant facts emerged during hearing on 29.04.2026:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Aruna Kumar present in person. Respondent: Represented by Shri V K Mishra, Administrative Officer along with Shri Rajesh Makkar, S.O. (Admin) and Shri Nikunj Arora, Advocate present in person.
24. Written statements filed by the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
25. Ld. Counsel for the CPIO by placing reliance on the written statement stated that a point-wise reply along with relevant inputs and intimating the factual position, wherever desired has been provided to the Appellant initially and again vide revised reply dated 08.04.2026. On going through Appeal by Appeal, in File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/646171, Ld. Counsel for the CPIO stated that no such construction was carried out on the second floor of college building and this fact was informed to the Appellant in response to point No. 1 of RTI application under reference, hence, in light of this fact other points of information sought is not applicable.
26. In File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/639811, Ld. Counsel for the CPIO stated that at point No. 1, list of daily wage staff engaged in the College during 2017- 2025 provided to the Appellant vide revised reply, for point No. 2, 3, 4 and 7 regarding designation of the daily wages staff, their recruitment Rules, qualification, exams tests of their selection, CPIO informed with the revised reply that no such information is available with the College. At point No. 6 the Appellant sought details of governing body, chairman, etc. for appointment of daily wage staff, in this regard, CPIO informed that such details are available on the college website under the minutes of the governing body. It was the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the CPIO that staff appointed on daily wage basis are casual staff and they are changed as per requirement. They are Page 8 of 19 engaged for specific needs often on short term or project basis, there are no specific recruitment Rules applicable for such appointments as such.
27. In file No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/624514, Ld. Counsel for the CPIO apprised the Bench that initial reply has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.03.2025 informing her that semester wise time table for current semester (2024-25) is available on the college website which may be accessed through link https://arsdcollege.ac.in/time-table-2025/. Upon receipt of complete file of this Second Appeal, a revised reply was furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 08.04.2026 informing that information sought at point No. 1 & 2 of subject RTI application regarding time table allotted to Professor Gyantosh Jha, Principal of ARSD College, such information of his attendance records is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On point 3, regarding proof of display of time table of Professor Gyantosh Jha for the relevant session, it was informed through revised reply that such records are not available in the College.
28. In File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/118068, Ld. Counsel for the CPIO stated that as like in the other three Appeal, a revised reply has been provided to the Appellant in this matter as well vide letter dated 08.04.2026 by informing that on point No. 1, 2, 3 reply has already been provided in response to previous similar RTI application of the Appellant vide letter dated 07.01.2025 and 21.02.2025. On point No. 4, it was informed to the Appellant that contract of housekeeping agency were extended on same terms and conditions of the initial contract, the information of which has already been shared with the Appellant, however, at point No. 5, copy of minutes of meeting were enclosed in the revised reply.
29. Lastly, Ld. Counsel for the CPIO summed up his submission by contending that Appellant is an ex-employee of ARSD College whose service has been terminated on various charges and also, she is a habitual RTI applicant who filed multiple RTI applications with overlapping and repeated queries to harass the Respondent and create obstacles in carrying out the activities and functioning of the office by the CPIO.
30. On being queried by the Commission, the Appellant affirmed the receipt of the averred replies in each of the matters, however, she vehemently contended that information furnished by the CPIO is false and misleading and is meant to shield the corrupt activities of the College which as per the version of the Appellant is in derogation of the student's interest and their staff Page 9 of 19 concerned. Appellant further contended that she has challenged her service matter before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is sub-judice as on date. Appellant sought two days' time from the Commission to counter the response of the CPIO in each of the matter, which was allowed by the Bench.
31. Post hearing, the Commission has received revised response from the Appellant in each of this Second Appeal, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the ease of reference - File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/646171:
"...The images referred to above clearly depict the second floor of the ARSD College building. In the present RTI application, the applicant had specifically sought copies of the building plan duly approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), along with the safety certificate and copies of work orders pertaining to the construction of the said second floor. For the sake of brevity, all queries raised in the RTI application are not being reiterated herein.
2. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO), instead of furnishing the requested information, has failed to provide specific and relevant replies. The response appears to be evasive, involving wordplay and diversion from the core issues raised in the RTI application, thereby defeating the very purpose of seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005.
3. The applicant had also filed a complaint before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), regarding the aforesaid unauthorised construction. In response thereto, the Assistant Engineer (Building), MCD, South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi, vide letter No. 636/AE(B)-I/SZ/25 dated 08.07.2025, informed that the Principal of the college had been requested to submit the requisite documents and sanctioned building plan to substantiate the legality of the construction of the second floor.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the reply furnished by the Public Information Officer (PIO), ARSD College, is not only incomplete and evasive but also misleading. The same amounts to providing incorrect information under the RTI Act, 2005. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate action be initiated against the PIO in accordance with law for furnishing false and misleading information, and directions be issued to provide complete and correct information as originally sought in the RTI application."
File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/639811 "The revised response of PIO dated 08.04.2026 has once again failed to provide the relevant information asked for.
1. In Point No. 2 of the instant RTI application, the applicant had specifically sought information regarding the designation of staff engaged on a daily wage basis. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO), in his response, has stated that no such information is available with the college.
Page 10 of 19The said reply is incorrect, untenable, and contrary to the factual position. It is a matter of common administrative practice that daily wage workers are engaged against specific functional requirements and are assigned duties corresponding to identifiable designations such as Mali, Daftry, Sweeper, Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), Junior Assistant-cum-Typist, Driver, etc. Even if such engagements are temporary or need-based, the nature of duties performed necessarily reflects their designation or category of work.
In view of the above, the denial of information by the PIO on the ground that no such record exists is clearly misleading and appears to be an attempt to withhold information. The public authority is expected to maintain records of engagement, deployment, and payment of such workers, which inherently includes the nature of duties/designation assigned to them.
2. In Point No. 3 of the RTI application, the applicant had specifically sought copies of the Recruitment Rules against which the staff were engaged/selected. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) has replied that no such information is available with the college.
The said response is untenable and raises serious concerns regarding adherence to established procedures. Engagement of staff in any public authority must be governed by duly notified Recruitment Rules or prescribed norms. In the absence of such rules, the process of engagement lacks transparency, accountability, and legality.
Therefore, the reply of the PIO either indicates non-maintenance of mandatory records or an attempt to withhold information. In either case, the same is in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The public authority is duty-bound to maintain and furnish such records, especially when public funds are involved in the engagement and payment of staff.
3. In point No. 4, I had asked for qualifications of the staff hired on daily wages. The PIO in his response, has denied the information citing it as personal information which carries no larger public interest.
The said denial is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The information sought does not pertain to personal details in the nature of private or sensitive information, but rather relates to the eligibility and qualifications of individuals engaged by a public authority for discharge of public functions.
It is pertinent to submit that the college is a "public authority" within the meaning of the RTI Act, and all engagements made therein--whether regular or on a daily wage basis--must conform to prescribed qualifications and norms. Disclosure of such information is essential to ensure Page 11 of 19 transparency, accountability, and adherence to due process in public employment.
Therefore, the denial of information under the pretext of "personal information" is unjustified and appears to be an attempt to withhold information that is clearly disclosable in the larger public interest. The information sought pertains to the functioning of a public authority and cannot be exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. In Point No. 5 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought copies of notices/advertisements/tenders published on the college website, Government e Marketplace (GeM), or any other Government platform for the purpose of selection/engagement of staff. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO), in his response, has stated that no such information is available with the college.
The said response is highly irregular and raises serious concerns regarding the transparency and legality of the process adopted for engagement of staff. Engagement in a public authority is ordinarily required to be preceded by due publicity through appropriate notices/advertisements or prescribed procedures to ensure fairness, equal opportunity, and compliance with established norms.
The absence of any such record, as stated by the PIO, either indicates that no due process was followed in the engagement of staff or that relevant records are being withheld. In either case, the reply furnished by the PIO is unsatisfactory and contrary to the spirit and provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities.
5 In Point No. 6 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought copies of approvals of the Governing Body/Chairman/Chairperson for the appointments made. The Public Information Officer (PIO), in his response, has stated that the information is available on the college website in the uploaded Minutes of the Governing Body meetings.
The said reply is misleading and incomplete. Upon perusal of the documents available on the website, no such specific information regarding approvals for the appointments, as sought in the RTI application, is found. Furthermore, the Minutes uploaded on the website from the 2023, whereas the applicant had clearly sought information for the period commencing from the year 2017 onwards.
Therefore, the response of the PIO does not satisfy the query raised and amounts to denial of information by way of providing vague and non-specific Page 12 of 19 references. The PIO is under a statutory obligation to furnish precise and complete information as sought, rather than directing the applicant to incomplete or irrelevant records.
6 In Point No. 7 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought copies of the results of the examinations/tests conducted for recruitment of staff engaged on a daily wage basis. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) has stated in his response that no such information is available with the college.
The said reply is unsatisfactory and raises serious concerns regarding the procedure adopted for engagement of such staff. If any examination or test was conducted as part of the selection process, the records of the same, including results and evaluation details, ought to be maintained by the public authority. Conversely, if no such examination or test was conducted, the reply effectively indicates that appointments were made without any transparent or merit-based selection process.
In either scenario, the response furnished by the PIO reflects either non- maintenance of essential records or lack of due process in public recruitment, both of which are contrary to the principles of transparency and accountability enshrined under the RTI Act, 2005.
7. In Point No. 8 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought copies of appointment letters issued to the staff engaged by the college on a daily wage basis. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) has denied the information by categorizing it as "personal information" with no larger public interest.
The denial is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Appointment letters issued by a public authority pertain to official acts of engagement of personnel for discharge of public duties and involve expenditure from public funds. Such documents cannot be treated as purely personal information, as they reflect the process and legality of public appointments.
It is submitted that disclosure of such information is essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with prescribed procedures in public employment. At most, any sensitive personal details, if present, may be severed in accordance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, while providing the remaining information.
Therefore, the denial of the requested information under Section 8(1)(j) is unjustified and amounts to an improper refusal to disclose information that is clearly in the larger public interest."
Page 13 of 19File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/624514 "...1. In point No. 1 I had asked for copies of Time Table allotted to Professor Gyantosh Kumar Jha Principal ARSD College during the last five years. The PIO in his revised reply has denied to provide this information citing it as personal. However, he has provided a URL to view the course wise time table.
Presented below is a screeshots of the time table of some of the teachers (arranged alphabetically) uploaded on the college website (https://timetable.arsdcollege.ac.in/#/faculty/23):
xxx The said response is misconceived and inadequate. The timetable of a teacher in a public institution pertains to the discharge of official duties and cannot be treated as personal information under the RTI Act, 2005. Such information is directly related to public functions and is essential for ensuring transparency and accountability. It is further submitted that, upon perusal of the timetable available on the college website, the names and schedules of several teachers are duly reflected. However, the name of the Principal, Professor Gyantosh Kumar Jha, is conspicuously absent from the list. Similar information for other academic years is also available on the website, thereby indicating selective non-disclosure.
It is pertinent to mention that, as per the guidelines of the University Grants Commission (UGC), colleges are required to maintain and publish individual timetables of faculty members to ensure academic transparency and facilitate access for students. Availability of such information enables students and stakeholders to locate faculty members during working hours and ensures proper discharge of teaching responsibilities.
In view of the above, the denial of the requested information under the pretext of "personal information" is unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The reply furnished by the PIO is therefore incomplete, misleading, and amounts to denial of information.
2. In Point No. 2 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought copies of the attendance records submitted by the Principal, Professor Gyantosh Kumar Jha.
However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) has denied the information by categorizing it as "personal information." The said denial is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Attendance records of an employee serving in a public authority pertain to the discharge of official duties and are maintained in the ordinary course of administration. Such records cannot be treated as purely personal in nature, as they directly relate to accountability, presence, and performance in a public office.
Page 14 of 19It is submitted that the Principal holds a public position in a government-funded institution, and his attendance is intrinsically linked to the functioning of the college and the discharge of administrative and academic responsibilities. Disclosure of such information serves a clear public interest in ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration.
At best, if any portion of the record contains sensitive personal details, the same may be severed in accordance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005, while providing the remaining information.
Therefore, the denial of the requested information under Section 8(1)(j) is unjustified and amounts to an improper refusal to disclose information that is otherwise disclosable under the RTI Act, 2005.
3. At Point No. 3 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought proof regarding the display of the time tables of Professor Gyantosh Kumar Jha. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO), in his reply, has stated that the information sought is not available with the college.
The said response is vague, evasive, and unsatisfactory. If the time tables are being displayed as per institutional or regulatory requirements, the public authority is expected to maintain records or evidence of such display, whether in physical or electronic form. Non-availability of such information raises serious concerns regarding compliance with prescribed norms.
It is submitted that the information sought pertains to transparency in the functioning of a public authority and accountability of its officials. The PIO is under a statutory obligation to provide clear, specific, and complete information. A blanket denial stating that the information is "not available"
without proper justification amounts to an improper response under the RTI Act, 2005.
Therefore, the reply furnished by the PIO is inadequate and amounts to denial of information, defeating the purpose of the RTI Act, which is to promote transparency and accountability in public institutions."
File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/118068 "...1. At Point No. 4 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought copies of all renewed contracts executed with the housekeeping agency. The Public Information Officer (PIO), in his reply, has merely stated that the contracts were extended on the same terms and conditions as the initial contract, but has failed to provide copies of all four renewed contracts as specifically sought. The response is incomplete and amounts to denial of information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 15 of 192. At Point No. 5 of the RTI application, the applicant had sought copies of the committee minutes approving the extension of the contract with the housekeeping agency. However, in his revised reply, the PIO has furnished only three sets of minutes instead of four, as required. The selective and incomplete disclosure further reflects non-compliance with the RTI Act and amounts to partial denial of information.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the reply furnished by the Public Information Officer (PIO), ARSD College, is incomplete. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate action be initiated against the PIO in accordance with law for furnishing false and misleading information, and directions be issued to provide complete and correct information as originally sought in the RTI application."
32. Further, the CPIO filed rebuttal to above responses of the Appellant dated 04.05.2026 in each of the matters, which are taken on record.
Decision:
33. Heard the parties.
34. On perusal of the records of the instant Second Appeals, the Commission observes, at the outset, that similar nature of Second Appeals of the Appellant against same Public Authority has already been heard and decided by this Commission in the past and this repeated nature of RTI applications seeking similar information goes against the spirit of RTI Act and consuming the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The Commission places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it was held:
"37.... impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act Page 16 of 19 should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
35. It is noteworthy that CPIO can only provide such information as is held in the office record, and as a matter of fact, he/she is not obligated to create information as per the desire of the applicant under the mandate of RTI Act. The Commission placed reliance on a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.12.2014 in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], wherein the Court has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
36. Further, the issue flagged by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is a matter of grievance which is beyond the jurisdiction of the RTI Act, 2005. As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under Page 17 of 19 the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
37. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter ofGovt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
38. While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
39. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the CPIO mentioned about the pendency of litigation pertaining to service matter of the RTI applicant before the Competent Court of Law, however, it is not clearly brought on records by any of the parties to this matter, therefore, the aspect is not insisted upon by the Commission.
40. Now, as far as RTI applications in question are concerned, the Commission after going through the initial reply and revised replies of the CPIO arrives at the conclusion that point-wise reply of the CPIO addressing each and every query of the RTI application in each of the instant matters appears to be in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that personal details in the form of time table allotted to the Principal of College, attendance records, copy of contract of housekeeping agency, as sought by the Appellant contain elements of personal information of third-parties which are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 which was brought into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 establishes that Public Authority no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by out weighing public interest against privacy.
Page 18 of 1941. In the light of above observations, no relief can be granted in the matters, at this juncture.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लं गी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Ms. Aruna Kumar Page 19 of 19 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)