Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kulvant Singh vs Cbi on 23 March, 2026

                                  केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2025/624056

Kulvant Singh                                                ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO: Central Bureau of
Investigation, Dehradun                                  ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 14.02.2025            FA     : 12.03.2025              SA     : 27.05.2025

CPIO : 12.03.2025           FAO : Not on record              Hearing : 10.03.2026


Date of Decision: 17.03.2026
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2025 seeking information on the following points:

1. Provide certified copy of actions and proceedings done on letter no. KS/CMP/CBI/ACBDDN Dated 02/12/2024 send by applicant.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.03.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"In this regard, it is informed that you have not paid any required amount/Fee to CBI/ Government Account for obtaining the information under RTI Act, 2005.

As per the RTI application, you have mentioned that you are not below the Poverty Line. As per the "Rule of Section 7(5) of RTI Act, 2005- If requester is below the poverty line he will not pay any amount at the time of online RTI application".

In view of the above, your online RTI applications are being returned."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.03.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.05.2025. Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Manish Surdi, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had received the RTI application through Headquarter Office, however, the appellant had neither enclosed the RTI fee nor submitted any proof of belonging to BPL category. Further, the CPIO submitted that the as per their alternate mechanism available for complaints, there was no mandate for feedback, however, the appellant's complaint had been forwarded to Director, Vigilance and Security DRDO. Besides, the first appeal filed by the appellant had also been disposed of FAA (Joint Director, Lucknow) on 03.01.2025 wherein the reply of CPIO, CBI, Dehradun was upheld. The latest written submissions filed by the CPIO on 02.03.2026 are taken on record and are reproduced as under:

"It is submitted that this office has received on 20.12.2025 a notice dated 10.02.2026 of CIC, New Delhi for attending the hearing on 10.03.2026 in the second appeal filed by the applicant Shri Kulvant Singh in CIC. The said notice CIC/CBRUI/A/2025/624056 Page 2 of 5 has enclosed the copy of second appeal i.e. letter no. K/2AP/CIC/ACB dated 27.05.2025 of the said applicant.

2. With reference to the subject cited above, it is intimated that that RTI Application Nos. CBIMH/R/E/25/00117/1 and CBIMH/R/E/25/00118/1 dated 14.02.2025 were forwarded to this office vide Office Letter Nos. 587/RTI/2024/CBI/ACB/LKO dated 18.02.2025 and 586/RTI/2024/CBI/ACB/LKO dated 18.02.2025 respectively by HoB & CPIO, CBI, ACB, Lucknow. The aforesaid RTI applications were submitted online by Shri Kulwant Singh, R/o Village Pahadpur Kala Urf Maleshiya, Post-Mastafabad, District Bijnor, PIN- 246734, addressed to the PIO, CBI Headquarters, Plot No. 5B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

3. On perusal of the print out of the proforma (RTI Request Details) of both the said RTI applications, it was found that in the column towards 'amount paid', 0 (zero) amount was mentioned. The applicant had also mentioned that he does not belong below the poverty line. The copies of RTI Application Nos.

CBIMH/R/E/25/00117/1 and CBIMH/R/E/25/00118/1 dated 14.02.2025 along with enclosures are enclosed as Annexure 1 & 2 wherein the above information towards no payment of application fees is clearly evident. Hence, it was found that the requisite application fees as required under RTI Act was not paid by the said applicant while filing the above said RTI applications. Therefore, vide letter no. 644/7/24/2025/RTI/CBI/DAD dated 12.03.2025, HoB & CPIO, CBI, ACB, Dehradun returned the said RTI applications to the applicant on the ground that the requisite amount/fee to CBI/Government account had not been paid by the applicant for obtaining information under RTI Act, 2005 and the applicant is not below the poverty line. The said letter is enclosed as Annexure 3 for reference.

4. With regard to the contention of the applicant in his second appeal that the applicant had preferred First Appeal dated 12.03.2025 before the First Appellate Authority, Joint Director, Lucknow Zone, Central Bureau of Investigation, 7, Nawal Kishore Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow but no reply / information was provided to the applicant till now. In this regard, the undersigned made correspondence with Joint Director/Head of Zone, CBI, Lucknow and vide letter no. 106/RTI Matter/CBI/2025/LZ dated 02.03.2026, it was informed that reply was given by First Appellate Authority/Joint Director, CBI, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow, vide letter no. 209/RTI Matter/CBI/2025/LZ dated 03.06.2025, to the applicant informing that the information provided by CPIO/HoB, CBI, ACB, Dehradun is appropriate. The said reply was given to the applicant in the online through Appeal Management Information System. The copy of the letter dated 02.03.2026 of First Appellate Authority alongwith enclosures is enclosed as Annexure 4.

5. It is further submitted that as per the notification F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, CBI has been placed in the second schedule of Right to Information Act, 2005. As per the Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, this Act does not apply to the organization specify in the second schedule which includes CBI and hence the Right to Information Act does not apply to CBI. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant had not mentioned in his above said RTI applications that the information sought by him are pertaining to corruption and human rights.

6. Therefore, it is found that the contentions of applicant in the second appeal are incorrect and hence the matter may be rested."

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the applicant has failed to enclose RTI fee along with his RTI application, as per the RTI Rules, 2012. The relevant provision mandating the payment of RTI fee is extracted below for reference:

"3. Application Fee. An application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant."

Further, in the absence of the RTI fee or any proof of BPL having been enclosed along with the RTI application, scope of adjudication upon merits of the case does not arise. In view of the above, and in the absence of the appellant to contravene the submissions of the respondent, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 17.03.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Head of Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti - Corruption Branch, CBI Office Complex, Indira Nagar, New FRI, Dehradun, Uttarakhand - 248006

2. Kulvant Singh CIC/CBRUI/A/2025/624056 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)