Central Information Commission
M S Shankar Reddy vs Khadi & Village Industries Commission on 27 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/KVICO/C/2024/135000
M S Shankar Reddy ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Khadi & Village Industries Commission
D.No. 56-3-10A, Plot No. 9,
1st & 2nd floor, Ramanenivari Street,
Patamata, Vijayawada-520010. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.01.2026
Date of Decision : 27.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.08.2024
CPIO replied on : 25.09.2024
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.10.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.08.2024 seeking the following information:
"This RTI application if filed u/s 6 (1) of RTI Act that empowered the citizens of India to get the requested information from the Public authorities. The requested information is very vital for the landing policy to units registered under KVIC from the tax payers money and recovery of loans from the borrowers by due process of law and it is involved with large public interest.Page 1 of 5
The RTI application fee Rs.10/- demanded u/s 6 (1) of RTI Act is paid herewith by way enclosing an IPO for Rs. 10/- payable to your office at Vijayawada, bearing No. 62F 094490 dated: 31-08-2024 The requested information is as under.
1. Kindly do supply the recorded information how much loan is advanced to the above referred unit and how many documents were mortgaged with KVIC and present status of the loan dues.
2. Kindly do supply the recorded information of the loans recovery from the above referred unit by disposing the properties mortgaged and the procedure of auctioning or otherwise in nature and the Document No.s that were disposed for recovery of the loans. Kindly supply the copies of authorizing letters to dispose the properties by the above referred unit and how much loan amounts have been paid by the unit to satisfy the loan amounts."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 25.09.2024 stating as under:
"...In this regard, it is to inform that" the requested information is presented in the form of requests for clarification and Hypothetical 'such requests do not meet the criteria for defining information as outlined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, complainant directly filed the instant Complaint before the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Shri M S Shankar Reddy present through video conference. Respondent: Represented by Shri G Ravi Kumar, Sr. Executive Officer present through video conference.
4. Complainant narrated the factual background of the matter by stating that institution under reference, namely, Rayalaseema Grameena Vikasa Mandali, Kurnool runs small industries through the financial aid of KVIC against the mortgage of their land. He alleged that there is a large-scale corruption committed by KVIC who sold the mortgaged property of Institution without proper authorization. To expose this fraud, Complainant filed the RTI application in question to gather relevant information. However, his request has been vaguely denied by the CPIO without giving any substantive reasons. He apprised the Bench that one of his friends, namely, Page 2 of 5 Shri S Naveen filed a Second Appeal before the Commission bearing file No. CIC/KVICO/A/2024/108767 on the similar issue which was disposed of by the predecessor Bench of the CIC without any further directions. Hence, this Complaint filed before the Commission to take action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. On being queried by the Bench, the representative of the CPIO, Shri G Ravi Kumar pleaded that due to official work the current CPIO, namely, Shri R L N Murthy, Asst. Director- II/CPIO did not appear before the Bench. Therefore, he was authorized to represent the case on behalf of present CPIO. Representative of the CPIO was unable to substantiate the reply/submissions in the matter properly and he tendered his apology in this regard by stating that he appeared before the Bench on the directions of higher ups which is the CPIO in the matter. On being further queried by the Commission, Shri G Ravi Kumar replied that D Noor Mohammad, Assistant Director I was the then CPIO at the relevant time who retired from the service.
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that this case is a complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC
864.
7. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. On going through the case records it is noted by the Commission that decision of the CPIO in response to this RTI application by denying the request in one liner that "the requested information is presented in the form of requests for clarification and Hypothetical 'such requests do not meet the criteria for defining information as outlined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 ." without substantiating the same with relevant applicable exemption clause of the RTI Act, 2005 is baseless and not in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. It is based on semantics which is in violation of the spirit of the RTI Act. No effort was made by the Respondent/CPIO to understand and resolve the grievance of the Appellant. The CPIO should have facilitated relevant information as sought by Page 3 of 5 the Appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Instead of doing the needful, the CPIO gave vague reply, which is not appreciable. Further, the Respondent's representative who appeared initially did not file any authority letter to represent the case on behalf of PIO prior to the hearing and was not acquainted with the facts of the case.
8. It is also noted by the hearing Bench that the reply of the CPIO carries procedural defects as it was not issued in a proper format without showing the name, designation and contact details of the replying Respondent; and also, the concluding paragraphs of the CPIO's reply failed to give the details of First Appellant Authority. Such omission of the CPIO is blocking the channel available with the Complainant to file First Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, it is in contravention of Office Memorandum No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, 2005 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."
9. The present CPIO, Shri R L N Murthy ought to have made the efforts to provide a revised reply to the Complainant after receiving the hearing notice from the Commission. The casual conduct of the CPIOs in this case Page 4 of 5 prima facie depicts that the information has been malafidely denied to the Complainant. The then CPIO has retired from the service, therefore, no harsh action can be taken against him, however, the omission on the part of the present CPIO, Shri R L N Murthy depicts his disregard towards the RTI matters which calls for show cause.
10. In light of the above, the Commission, deems it expedient to issue Show Cause Notice to the present CPIO, Shri R L N Murthy, Assistant Director-II, to explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons. Written explanation of the CPIO should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
11. Meanwhile, Shri R L N Murthy is advised to provide point-wise updated reply to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
12. The FAA shall ensure compliance of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Copy to:
First Appellate Authority, Khadi & Village Industries Commission RTI Cell, 3 Irla Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400056.
Shri M S Shankar Reddy Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)