Central Information Commission
Riju R vs Fluid Control Research Institute on 17 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/FCRIN/C/2024/631146
Riju R ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO Fluid Control Research
Institute, Kanjikode West, Palakkad -
678623
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026
Date of Decision : 16.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 09.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 10.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.06.2024
Complaint dated : 21.07.2024
Page 1 of 9
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"(1) Is the Office Memorandum F. No. J-12012/2/2017-Judicial dated 30th June 2017 applicable to Fluid Control Research Institute which is an autonomous body.
(2) What are the actions and initiatives taken by Sri. M.Suresh, (Administrative officer-I/C) for implementation of the above mentioned order.
(3) How many governing council meetings of FCRI has been conducted after Sri.M.Suresh taken charge of administrative department. (4) Total Expenses incurred for advocate fees after 30th June 2017 for engaging private advocates other than the Council engaged by department of legal affairs in the court cases of FCRI in which Union of India also a party.
(5) Has FCRI registered under societies act with number PKD/CA/376/1987 submitted list of Governing Council members to District Registrar office, Palakkad after 2007-2008 which is a mandatory requirement.
(6) When did Head Finance Sri Sunil kumar of FCRI, which is registered under Societies act with number PKD/CA/376/1987 submitted yearly Financial Report to District Registrar office, Palakkad lastly, which is a mandatory requirement.
(7) Has FCRI registered under Societies act with number PKD/CA/376/1987 submitted society Bye- Law to District Registrar office, Palakkad after each amendments which is a mandatory requirement.
(8) Has FCRI- Head Administrative and Personnel I/C Sri M.Suresh corrected the backlog happened for communal reservation candidates in the recruitments previously done before issuing the notification for recruitment in general category - FCRI/P&A/2024/RE- N001 dated 09.02.2024.
(9) Has Sri M.Suresh followed communal reservation rules in the Fixed Term contract recruitments during his tenure as FCRI- Head Administrative and Personnel I/C. (10) Has FCRI done recruitment for statutory post like Safety officer, Hindi officer, Security officer etc. with suitable qualifications as per Govt.
of India. norms which are presently vacant before issuing notification for recruitment of Engineers FCRI/P&A/2024/RE-N001 dated 09.02.2024.
Page 2 of 9(11) Has FCRI Public Information officer Sri M.Suresh given contradictory statements as per RTI act 2005 regarding communal reservation followed in Recruitment process previously done in FCRI. (12) List of total Number of Sanctioned post in Regular cadre in FCRI at present designation wise.
(13) As per Govt. of India norms what all Statutory sanctioned post are required in FCRI and list of vacant post designation wise. (14) How many of above Statutory posts are Non existing in FCRI at present.
(15) Is there any pending EPF amount to be received by casual employees working under contractor for which FCRI finance department is responsible."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.04.2024 stating as under:
"(1) FCRI-GC has not adopted the OM for FCRI. (2) Refer (1) above.
(3) 6
(4) Rs 2.8 Lakhs
(5) Yes
(6) The information is submitted by Director-FCRI annually and
not Head Finance.
(7) Yes
(8) There is no backlog vacancy for any posts, and no corrections
are needed.
(9) Yes.
(10) There are no such posts sanctioned for FCRI and no vacancies for such posts.
(11) This is not appropriate RTI query.(12) Page 3 of 9
(13) There are no such posts sanctioned for FCRI and therefore no vacancies of such posts.
(14) NA (15) There is no pending EPF amount for which FCRI Finance Dept is responsible."
3. Being dissatisfied,, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 13.06.2024 stated as under:
"(1) With reference to above, the Appellant requested for a personal hearing before deciding his appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) reviewed the Letter of request from the appellant wherein he had sought a personal hearing and found that he did not make any mention of any deficiency in the reply provided by the CPI CPIO.
However, he was still provided an opportunity for personal hearing on 28.05.2024 to know first first-hand hand from the applicant, the details on queries for which requested information was not provided. At the personal hearing, the appellant was asked to brief about his queries and on which of his queries in his RTI request the CPIO did not Page 4 of 9 provide any information or had provided information with factual errors. At the hearing, the Appellant requested that he wished to be provided answers to his queries specifically Sl.No.s 1, 2, 6 to 10 and 14, as mentioned in the signed Minutes of the Personal Hearing. Copy of Minutes is enclosed for reference.
(2) Therefore, the FAA carefully examined the RTI application received from the appellant, as well as the detailed response provided by the CPIO of FCRI and the letter of appeal from the applicant. Based on the same, for the queries at Sl. No.s 1, 2, 6 to 10 and 14, the Appellate Authority notes the following points:
(a) The CPIO has provided factual information w.r.t Query No. 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14.
(b) With reference to Query No. 6, the communication was sent from FCRI on 06.12.2023.
(c) W.r.t Query No.7, it is noted that as per records, no amendments to bye-laws of the Society have been undertaken in recent past mandating a submission of amendments to the Registrar of Societies Palakkad.
(d) With reference to Query No. 9, the Institute provides for relaxation in age limits of candidates as applicable to reservation categories SC/ST/OBC-NCL.
(e) On query No. 10, it is noted that there are no sanctioned posts under the category Statutory posts (or posts specifically created by an Act of Parliament for FCRI).
(f) Appellant did not elaborate on Query No. 11, 13, 14.
(g) With reference to appellant's RTI query number 12, the details of sanctioned posts cadre-wise have been given by the CPIO as per Recruitment Rules in vogue. There is no designation-wise sanctioned posts at FCRI. The Designation-wise present incumbency information is already provided in public domain in Annexure D in FCRI RTI Proactive Disclosure at the Institute website. Therefore, the FAA is of the view that reply provided by CPIO stands. The respondent (CPIO) has not concealed any information based on available records. (3) In his appeal, the appellant mentions delay in receipt of response. It is observed that the RTI applicant who is a casual employee at FCRI, had submitted his RTI application to another Public Authority (instead of to CPIO of FCRI) and the Public Authority in turn forwarded the same to FCRI. The application was received by FCRI on Page 5 of 9 18 March 2024 while the reply was sent by post on 18 April 2024 within one month of receipt of the application.
(4) In his appeal, the appellant mentions that the CPIO reply doesn't have Office seal and designation seal of PIO, and the letter doesn't have registration details of the Institution. In this regard, it is informed that as per guidelines mentioned in DOPT OM No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015, there are no such requirements regarding replies to RTI.
(5) Though an opportunity of personal hearing has been granted, it is noted that whether or not to provide an opportunity of hearing is the discretion of Appellate Authority and not an inflexible rule. In view of the above observations, and based on the facts as brought out, FAA does not find any reason to interfere with the response provided by the CPIO. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Riju R. Respondent: Mr. U Muthukumar, CPIO, FCRI
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that his RTI application dated 26.02.2024 was not transferred within the mandatory period of five days as prescribed under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that no response was provided within the statutory period of thirty days and that replies were issued only after the Appellant sent a reminder email dated 06.04.2024. The Appellant has also submitted that certain information furnished by FCRI was false and misleading, particularly in relation to submission of Governing Council lists to the Registrar, filing of amended bye-laws, and compliance with communal reservation norms.
7. Written submissions dated 04.02.2026 filed by the appellant is taken on record which states that there is a delay in transfer of the RTI application, dereliction of statutory duty by the CPIO, Ministry of Heavy Industries, and improper transfer despite the information allegedly being available with the Ministry. With respect to FCRI, it is stated delayed and incomplete Page 6 of 9 disclosure, procedural defects in the RTI reply, furnishing of misleading information regarding Governing Council filings, bylaw amendments, and reservation norms, and inconsistencies with records of the Registrar's Office.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that he RTI application was originally addressed to the Ministry of Heavy Industries and was forwarded to FCRI, which received it on 18.03.2024. The reply dated 09.04.2024 was issued within thirty days of receipt. It is stated that all fifteen queries were responded to, based on available records. He further submitted they have regularly submitted to the registrar all statutory information as mandated under Registration of Societies Act.
9. Written Submission dated 03.02.2026 filed by the Respondent CPIO is taken on record, which states that the RTI was initially received by the CPIO, Department of Heavy Industries, and transferred to the CPIO, FCRI, who received it on 18.03.2024 and provided a reply to all 15 queries. Information available on record was furnished, except for queries seeking opinion/justification, which were rightly stated as not falling within the scope of the RTI Act. It is stated that the applicant filed a first appeal without specifying deficiencies. The FAA granted a personal hearing on 28.05.2024, during which the appellant admitted that responses to several queries were satisfactory. It is stated that all available information has been provided to the appellant.
Written Submissions dated 13.02.2026 along with copy of RTI received from respondent CPIO and Copy of latest Registration Certificate filed by the Respondent CPIO is taken on record which states that annual reports to the Registrar are regularly submitted for the years 2007-08 to 2012-2013 and in proof of timely submission Letter Reference no. is also mentioned.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions notes that the RTI application dated 26.02.2024 was filed by the Appellant before the CPIO, Ministry of Heavy Industries, seeking information on fifteen points relating to the administrative functioning of Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI). The appellant sought information with respect to conduct of Governing Council meetings, expenditure on advocate fees, compliance with statutory requirements under the Societies Registration Act, submission of financial reports to the District Registrar, recruitment procedures, reservation compliance, sanctioned posts, statutory posts, EPF dues, and related administrative matters. The RTI Page 7 of 9 application was initially received by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and was subsequently forwarded to FCRI and it was received by FCRI on 18.03.2024 and replied to on 09.04.2024, which is within the statutory period of thirty days from receipt. Therefore, no delay under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act is attributable to FCRI.
The Commission takes note of the facts on the record that RTI application was received by the Nodal Officer, RTI in Department of Heavy Industry (DHI) on 26.02.2024 and on the same day it was forwarded online to the CPIO, (DS-RK). However CPIO (DS-RK) Inder Jeet Singh transferred the RTI application to FCRI on 18.03.2024 through email, and further replied online to the appellant on 10.04.2024 stating that the sought information is not under the custody of the CPIO and the request may be raised to the CPIO, FCRI.
With regard to the allegations of false information relating to Governing Council lists, bye-law amendments, and reservation compliance, the Commission notes that the material placed before the Commission does not establish that the respondent CPIO knowingly furnished false information. The Commission observes that mere contradiction with alleged records of another authority does not automatically establish mala fide intent unless deliberate suppression is demonstrated.
In view of the above, the Commission observes that prima facie no malafide is found on the part of respondent CPIO (FCRI).
Notwithstanding the above, considering the delay in transfer of the RTI application and for sending delayed and factually incorrect reply to the appellant, the then CPIO (DS-RK) Inder Jeet Singh Department of Heavy Industries is directed to file a written explanation as to why action under the Act should not be taken against him for the above lapses on his part. His written explanation with the comments of FAA shall be submitted within 30 days from the receipt of this order, failing which penal action shall be taken under the RTI Act. Nodal Officer, RTI in the Public Authority is directed to ensure compliance of the above directions.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 16.02.2026 Page 8 of 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S K Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO Fluid Control Research Institute, Kanjikode West, Palakkad - 678623 (2) Mr. Inder Jeet Singh The then CPIO (DS-RK) Department of Heavy Industries Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi -110011 (3) FAA, RTI Department of Heavy Industry, Room No. 61, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi -110011 (4) Nodal Officer, RTI Department of Heavy Industry, Room No. 61, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi -110011 (5) Shri Riju R Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)