Central Information Commission
Krishnakumar S vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 6 May, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/PBSEC/A/2025/612019
Krishnakumar S
.....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : Pay and Accounts Officer, ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Doordarshan Kendra, Swamy
Sivanandasalai, Chennai - 600 005.
Date of Hearing : 05-05-2026
Date of Interim Decision : 05-05-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24-11-2024
CPIO replied on :
First appeal filed on : 08-02-2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 24-02-2025
2nd Appeal dated : 12-03-2025
CIC/PBSEC/A/2025/612019 Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24-11-2024 seeking the following information:
"1) Kindly provide the action taken report on the representation forwarded to DD PAO Chennai vide No.14(4)2014/AI/DKT/1428 dated:
12/11/2024, by Doordarshan Kendra - Thiruvananthapuram."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO Chennai, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08-02-2025. The FAA vide its order dated 24-02-2025, held as under:
" FAA Decision On perusal of RTI query, it is understood that the appellant is expecting to settle his grievance through RTI and seeking action taken report on correspondence record pertaining to him held by the office of CPIO. The information sought by appellant will not come under the purview of definition of information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act. However, the CPIO is fair enough to transfer the application to PAO, DDK, Chennai and informed the appellant that as and when the information is received the same will be supplied to the appellant. In view of the above, the appellant is informed that the CPIO can only supply information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act and is not under obligation to inform action taken report on any matter as such the reply of CPIO is in order and no need to interfere. "
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-CIC/PBSEC/A/2025/612019 Page 2 of 5
Appellant: Attended the hearing through video conference. Respondent: Mr. Bhuvaneswari, P & A Officer, attended the hearing through audio conference.
4. The Appellant submitted, that he sought action taken report on the representation forwarded to DD PAO Chennai vide No.14(4)2014/AI/DKT/1428 dated: 12/11/2024, by Doordarshan Kendra - Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant also submitted, that he has not received the sought information till date.
5. The Respondent submitted, that they had received the RTI application of the appellant on transfer from Thiruvananthapuram, vide letter dated 09.12.2024. However, the RTI fee was not received at their end. Hence, vide letter dated 16.12.2024, the appellant's RTI application was returned to the CPIO, Thiruvananthapuram.
6. Written submission dated 05.05.2026 along with letter dated 16.12.2024 and action history of the RTI application filed by the respondent are taken on record.
Interim Decision:
7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the respondent did not give any reply to the appellant within stipulated time-limit as per the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission finds, that as per the action history submitted by the respondent herself, the appellant had filed an online RTI application by duly paying the RTI fee in online mode. Therefore, the respondent CPIO, Chennai is directed to provide the sought information to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the CIC/PBSEC/A/2025/612019 Page 3 of 5 Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add.
8. Apart from the above, the Commission finds that the respondent has wrongly returned the RTI application to the CPIO Thiruvananthapuram, without considering the fact that the appellant had already paid the fee in online mode while filing the RTI application. In view of the above, the then incumbent CPIO is hereby SHOW-CAUSED as to why penalty U/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon him/her for not providing the sought information to the appellant within stipulated time limit as per the RTI Act, 2005, despite the fact that the appellant had already paid the fee . The respondent is directed to submit detailed written explanation to the Commission for the aforesaid reason
- both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is reserved for further orders.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 05.05.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 CIC/PBSEC/A/2025/612019 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Pay and Accounts Officer, Doordarshan Kendra, Swamy Sivanandasalai, Chennai - 600 005.
2. The FAA, Pay and Accounts Officer, Doordarshan Kendra, Swamy Sivanandasalai, Chennai - 600 005.
3. S. Krishnakumar CIC/PBSEC/A/2025/612019 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)