Central Information Commission
Ghasilal vs Gnctd on 25 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/114305
Ghasilal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Delhi Building and Other Construction
Workers Welfare Board District Labour
Welfare Centre, NW District, Nimri
Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase-4,
Delhi-110052 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.09.2025
Date of Decision : 24.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.02.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 20.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 17.02.2024 seeking the following information:
" वषयः- नमाण मक के अ धकार, दावा सूचना का अ धकार 2005 के मा यम से सूचनाएं ा त कराई जाए Page 1 of 7 न"न ल$खत सूचनाएं ा त कराई जाए (1) प'रवार प( शन हे तु आवेदन प- समय सीमा Application for Family Pension - Time Limit (2) ववाह सहायता के लए आवेदन प- समय सीमा Application for Marriage Assistance - Time Limit (3) श/ा छा-व ृ 2 के आवेदन प- समय सीमा Application for Education Scholarship - Time Limit (4) च3क4सा सहायता हे तु आवेदन प- समय सीमा Application for Medical Assistance - Time Limit (5) म4ृ यु लाभ हे तु आवेदन प- - समय सीमा Application for Death Benefits- Time Limit (6) Application for Ex- gratia Medical Assistance for Accident - Time Limit (7) Application for Financial Assistance for Travel Pass - Time Limit (8) Financial Assistance for Education Time Limit (9) Application for Pension (60 Years Old) - Time Limit (10) अि7तम सं8कार लाभ हे तु आवेदन प- समय सीमा Application for Funeral Benefit - Time Limit (11) यं- ऋण हेतु आवेदन प- - समय सीमा Application for Instrument Loan - Time Limit (12) नःश:तता प( शन हे तु आवेदन प- - समय सीमा Application for Disability Pension - Time Limit (13) औजार< को खर>दने हे तु अनुदान के लए आवेदन प- -समय सीमा Application for Grant of Purchase of work Related Tools - Time Limit (14) सू त लाभ के लए आवेदन प-- समय सीमा Application for Maternity Benefit- Time Limit म? घासीलाल (राज म8-ी) 14 (चौदह) Dब7दओ ु ं कG सूचनाएं चाहता हूं जैसे:- कोई नमाण मक आपके वभाग म( आवेदन प- दे ता है या 3कसी दावा के लए आवेदन प- दे ता है तो उस आवेदन प- को या दाव< को आप 3कतने Lदन< या 3कतने समय म( आप उस नमाण मक को उसका अ धकार Lदला दे ते है सूचना का अ धकार अ ध नयम 2005 के तहत समय सीमा म( सूचनाएं उपलMध कराई जाए"
2. Having not received any response from PIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.03.2024. The FAA's order is not on record.
Page 2 of 73. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Surender Kumar, Section Officer/PIO; Shri Santosh Kumar, Manager (Operation); and Md. Altaf Alam, IT Assistant, appeared in person.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 06.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he has received the information only four days back along with the written submission dated 04.09.2025. He requested the Commission to take necessary action for the delay caused in furnishing the information.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 04.09.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. This is with reference to appeal dated 09.09.2025, received from Delhi Building & other Construction Workers Welfare Board vide ID No. F. No. 787/802/806/DBOCWWB/RTI/2024/1017-18 dated 21.08.2025 forwarding notice of hearing for Appeal/ Complaint of Sh. Ghashilal, Applicant/Complainant, S/o Sh. Harcharan, R/o A-52, First Floor, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi-110033
2. Applicant filed RTI application dated 20.02.2024, received in this office on 23.02.2024 vide Dairy No. 91/SO/NWD/2024. The desired information sent to applicant vide letter no. SO/NWD/RTI/2024/7109 dated 29.02.2024 (copy enclosed) and therein also stated that "if you are not satisfied with the given information/reply, you may file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Secretary (DBOCWW Board) within 30 days".
3. Furthermore, Applicant/Complainant approach to First Appellate Authority and file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Page 3 of 7 Secretary (DBOCWW Board) and appeal was disposed off on dated 19.02.2025 (copy enclosed) and therein also stated that "if the appellant is still not satisfied, he can file second appeal under section 19 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 within 90 days with the Central Information Commission."
7. The Respondent submitted that information sought was already available on their website since 2018. They further submitted that all the above replies were sent to the Appellant through speed-post and the same was delivered at his address.
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 Respondent PIO had furnished a reply dated 29.02.2024, well within the stipulated time under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The FAA also adjudicated the matter. The Appellant's grievance is essentially regarding delay and adequacy of the information. However, since the information sought was general in nature (time-limits for various benefits) and was already placed on the website since 2018, no mala fide denial can be established. Once the information has been placed in public domain, the PIO is no longer the custodian of the same and is therefore, not obliged to provide it in response to the RTI application. Moreover, during the hearing, the Respondent reiterated that complete details were sent to the Appellant by speed-post at the relevant time, and the Appellant has again received the same along with the written submission. In these circumstances, no intervention of the Commission is warranted under the RTI Act.
9. It is noted that the applicant belongs to a BPL family and is not required to pay fee for filing RTI application. Despite information being available on the website the Appellant chose to obtain the same by filing RTI application.
10. Notwithstanding above, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject. In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to Page 4 of 7 refer order dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
11. The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."Page 5 of 7
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act
12. In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is dismissed 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 Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department 7th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat I. P. Estate, New Delhi 110002 The FAA Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board A-Wing, 7th-Floor, Vikas Bhavan-II, Civil-Lines, Delhi - 110054 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)