Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Y Mahajan vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 28 April, 2026

                             के ीय सू चना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


 File No: CIC/AIIMS/A/2025/613422

 Y Mahajan                                                  .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                              VERSUS
                                               बनाम

 CPIO
 ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
 SCIENCES Sri Aurobindo Marg,
 Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-
 110029                                                  .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

 Date of Hearing                     :   27.04.2026
 Date of Decision                    :   28.04.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Jaya Varma Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

 RTI application filed on            :   02.12.2024
 CPIO replied on                     :   18.12.2024
 First appeal filed on               :   06.01.2025
 First Appellate Authority's order   :   Not on record
 2nd Appeal dated                    :   19.03.2025


Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.12.2024(online) seeking the following information:

"Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request the following information related to audits and observations concerning the CIC/AIIMS/A/2025/613422 Page 1 of 3 procurement of cochlear implants at AIIMS, particularly regarding the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implants from 1998-2014:

1 Kindly provide the copies of internal audit reports conducted by AIIMS Audit Section from 1998 to 2014 that reviewed cochlear implant procurement. 2 Please provide the details of any irregularities flagged during these audits, including:

i) The absence of a bank guarantee for procurement.

ii) The use of proprietary certificates issued by non-neutral sources.

iii) The prolonged exclusive promotion of the Nucleus 24 implant over other FDA-

approved alternatives.

3 Kindly provide the copies of audit observations, recommendations, or directives received by AIIMS from external audit authorities (e.g., CAG) concerning cochlear implant procurement for the period 1998-2014. 4 Please provide copies of any communications or reports sent by AIIMS to external audit authorities in response to their observations or directives. 5 Please provide the copies of action taken reports (ATRs) or compliance reports prepared by AIIMS in response to any audit findings (internal or external) related to cochlear implant procurement.

6 Please provide details of AIIMS procurement policies for cochlear implants during 1998-2014, particularly regarding:

i) Procedures for waiving bank guarantees.

ii) The issuance of proprietary certificates for Nucleus 24 implants.

7 Kindly provide us the records of communications, meeting minutes, or decisions that approved these procurement practices."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.12.2024 stating as under:

"No records are available in the Department."

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2025. The FAA order is not available on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Shri Mayank Chakradhar, CPIO-cum-Accounts Officer and Shri Sushil Kumar, CPIO-cum-Accounts Officer, attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.

6. The Respondent submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is not available in the records. He apprised the Bench that no internal audit for the relevant period has been conducted.

7. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 04.04.2026 and the same has been taken on record.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided a suitable reply to the Appellant based on available records and under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case for further adjudication.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/AIIMS/A/2025/613422 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)