Central Information Commission
Sanjay Kumar Verma vs Prime Minister'S Office on 10 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं ा / Complaint No. CIC/PMOIN/C/2024/639326
Sanjay Kumar Verma ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Prime Minister's Office ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2026
Date of Decision : 09.03.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.03.2024 FA : - SA : 04.09.2024
CPIO : 08.04.2024 FAO : - Hearing : 09.03.2026
Date of Decision: 09.03.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 16.03.2024 before the PIO, Prime Minister's Office, seeking the following information:
"Subject give me some information under RTI act 2005 What action taken yet Give all summary and making report Or any action." [reproduced verbatim]
2. The PIO, Prime Minister's Office responded vide online reply dated 08.04.2024 stating as under:
"Reply:- Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a person who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request to (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be of the concerned public Authority. The applicant is, therefore, requested to file his RTI application directly with the concerned Public Authority."
[reproduced verbatim] Complaint No. CIC/PMOIN/C/2024/639326 Page 1 of 3
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the PIO, alleging that PIO's reply is incorrect/false/misleading, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
4. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Mr. Parvesh Kumar- CPIO attended the hearing through video conference from the Prime Minister's Office
5. The Respondent present during hearing contended that since the Complainant had annexed representations which he had submitted before the Vice Chancellor/Governor, Uttar Pradesh about Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Ayodhya, hence the PIO vide his reply had requested him to approach the concerned public authority of the relevant State Government.
Decision
6. Upon perusal of the records of the case, it is noted that the Complainant had sought action taken report from the Respondent public authority, viz. PMO about action taken on his representations which he had addressed to the Vice Chancellor/Governor, Uttar Pradesh about Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University, Ayodhya. In the given circumstances, the reply sent by the PIO on 08.04.2024 requesting the Complainant to seek information from the concerned public authority is found appropriate, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant on the other hand filed this Complaint on incorrect and misleading grounds, despite the fact that accurate response had been duly provided to him.
7. The Complainant has not filed any written submission before the Commission providing any reasonable ground for filing the instant case. On the other hand, the reply sent by the PIO, Prime Minister's Office is found appropriate in terms of provisions of the RTI Act.
8. The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, and hence the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that appropriate response had been duly sent by the Respondent to the Complainant, indicating absence of deliberate or wilful denial of information in this case. The scope and ambit of proceedings under provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act are limited and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State Complaint No. CIC/PMOIN/C/2024/639326 Page 2 of 3 of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
9. The Commission finds that the Complainant has not been able to state his objection with the reply furnished by the Respondent, or elucidate or point out any specific anomaly or deficiency in the response provided by the Respondent. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent has provided response which is legally accurate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The reply does not suffer from any legal infirmity, nor any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent can be found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Sd/-
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Complaint No. CIC/PMOIN/C/2024/639326 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)