Central Information Commission
Praveen Kumar vs Keshav Mahavidyalaya on 27 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/KESMH/A/2024/619017
Praveen Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o. the Registrar, Keshav
Mahavidyalaya, University of
Delhi, H-4/5, Zone Pitampura
Delhi-110034 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2025
Date of Decision : 26.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.04.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First appeal filed on : 29.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.04.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"
1. Please provide the certified copy of Audit report of Keshav Mahavidyalaya (University of Delhi), issued by your office, as per your office record for the financial years 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11, 2011
- 12, 2012 - 13, 2013 - 14, 2014 - 15, 2015 - 16, 2016 - 17, 2017 - 18, 2018 - 19, 2019 - 20, 2020 - 21, 2021 - 22, 2022 - 23.
Page 1 of 142. Please provide the certified copy of Compliance report submitted by Keshav Mahavidyalaya (University of Delhi) to your office, as per your office record with reference to Audit report for the financial years 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12, 2012 - 13, 2013 - 14, 2014 - 15, 2015 - 16, 2016 - 17, 2017 - 18, 2018 - 19, 2019 - 20, 2020 - 21, 2021 - 22, 2022 - 23.
3. Please provide the certified copy of Action Take Report (ATR) submitted by Keshav Mahavidyalaya (University of Delhi) to your office, as per your office record a with reference to Audit report for the financial years 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12, 2012 - 13, 2013
- 14, 2014 - 15, 2015 - 16, 2016 - 17, 2017 - 18, 2018 - 19, 2019 - 20, 2020 - 21, 2021 - 22, 2022 - 23.
4. Please provide the certified copy of reply submitted by Keshav Mahavidyalaya (University of Delhi). to your office, as per your office record with reference to the Audit report for the financial years 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12, 2012 - 13, 2013 - 14, 2014 - 15, 2015 - 16, 2016 - 17, 2017 - 18, 2018 - 19, 2019 - 20, 2020 - 21, 2021 - 22, 2022 - 23.
5. After receipt of the information under this RTI application, I intend to carry out an actual inspection of concerned/relevant records in your office and obtain certified photocopies of the records identified by me during the inspection. I may please be permitted such inspection. It is further requested that three dates and timings may please be intimated to me through email before, I am called for inspection of records."
2. The CPIO, Sr. Accountant Deputy General, O/o Principal Accountant General (Audit), Delhi transferred the RTI Application to PIO, Kehsav Mahavidyalay vide letter dated 21.08.2023 as under:
"..Shri Praveen Kumar has preferred RTI application and subsequently inspected records under the provisions of RTI Act to seek information regarding Inspection Report of Keshav Mahavidyalaya. He had requested for the copies of documents which has been provided by you to this office during the course of Audit.
The same is being forwarded to you for consideration to provide it to the applicant..."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2024. The FAA, Keshav Mahavidyalay vide its order dated 03.05.2024, held as under:
Page 2 of 14"With respect to the aforesaid 1st appeal of the appellant Shri. Praveen Kumar and the ground agitated by the appellant has been during considered and the request for the online personal hearing was also made which was also duly considered as the pertains to interpretation of the document .There is no requirement of personal hearing . it may satisfy the personal desired of the appellant and is not the sprite behind the first appeal therefore the request for personal hearing is declined As far as the grounds in respect of not formally registering the RTI application, not even returning the same , no transferring the RTI application to any other CPIO and further not bothering to the reply to alleged detailed email 29-11-2023.
The appellant has further raised the ground that there is zero communication from CPIO.
The CPIO has been head at length, it was brought to the notice that the document provided by the Keshav Mahavidyalaya to AGCR were again return to the College i.e. Keshav Mahavidyalaya where by a discretion has been granted to CPIO for due consideration in respect of providing the document to the appellant and CPIO in his discretion was of the opinion that these documents need not to be provided to the appellant . There is no reason to find fault with the discretion applied by CPIO.
As far as the ground that RTI application were not formally registered is also unsustainable as the RTI application was not transferred for the purpose a providing the information rather it was transferred to CPIO for consideration .
The appeal the disposed of in above terms "
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 11.11.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
6. A written submission dated 11.11.2025 has been received from Dr Jasmeet Simgh, Keshav Mahavidyalaya and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..The petitioner filed his online RTI application CAGIN/R/E/23/01311 dated 11.04.2023 with office of Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) of India seeking certified copies of voluminous record (Total 1932 pages) for which he had inspected Page 3 of 14 records with office of CAG. However instead of responding to RTI application by itself, office of CAG transferred RTI application to Keshav Mahavidyalaya vide CAG letter dated 21.08.2023.for reasons best known to office of CAG. Keshav Mahavidyalaya as such had no response for the RTI application addressed to office of CAG. IF CAG office considered appropriate as deemed fit in accordance with provisions of RTI Act, it could by itself provide bulky 1932-copied pages of documents. The petitioner filed a First Appeal under section 19(3) of RTI Act with First Appellate Authority at Keshav Mahavidyalaya, which was disposed of vide an order dated 19.01.2024.
It is noteworthy that the petitioner neither filed any First Appeal with office of CAG nor he made office of CAG a party in the petition filed with Hon'ble Central Information Commission. His only aim is to somehow target Keshav Mahavidyalaya through his regularly filed RTI applications with the College. Already he has filed about 50 RTI applications with the College. Such a tendency results in disproportionately diversifying resources of the College. Reference in this context is invited to para 37 of Supreme Court verdict dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of secondary Education versus Aditya Banopadhyaya and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011). Relevant extracts of para 37 of the said Supreme Court verdict are reproduced as hereunder:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."Page 4 of 14
Kind attention of your honour is invited to CIC-verdict dated 13.08.2024 in file-numbers CIC/UODEL/A/2023/145924, CIC/UODEL/A/2023/145925 and CIC/UODEL/A/145926 in the matter "Praveen Kumar versus CPIO, Keshav Mahavidyalaya where also Hon'ble Central Information Commission dismissed all the three petitions of the petitioner citing the Supreme Court verdiet dated 09.08.2011 in the matter "Central Board of secondary Education versus Aditya Banopadhyaya and others" (Civil Appeal number 6454 of 2011) as referred here-above. Hon'ble Commission also observed "Further, the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the information thus provided is a mere conjecture and appears to be an expression of a vindictive approach, both of which does not call for any intervention with the CPIO's replies". A copy of the esteemed CIC-verdict is enclosed with these submissions for kind ready reference of your honour, please.
Furthermore, such a tendency of bombarding a particular public- authority through too many RTI applications is held misuse of RTI Act by several verdicts of High Courts and Central Information Commission. Some of such verdicts are cited as here-under:
Delhi High Court 08.10.2015 (WPC 7911/2015) in the matter "Rajni Maindiratta versus PIO, Director of Education (North-West B)"
"Even otherwise, this is a rare instance where the Authority constituted under the RTI Act to oversee the working and implementation of the said W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015, namely the CIC, has itself found a person to be abusing the process of the RTI and the machinery created thereunder. The petitioner has not controverted, the factual aspect of making a number of RTI queries and preferring as many as 20 appeals to the CIC. Similarly, the petitioner has not been able to explain the reason, for which the information spanning over several decades, was sought. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.
Moreover, the petitioner who is wanting transparency by seeking information going back to two decades, ought not to have any grievance with her conduct being put up on the official website of the Department of Education and which disclosure is of nothing but of the number of RTI applications filed by the petitioner and the order of the CIC thereon. The petitioner cannot be heard to Page 5 of 14 complain of what she herself has caused to others" Delhi High Court 05.02.2014 (WPC 845/2014) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Sanjeev Kumar and others"
"Keeping in view the width and amplitude of the information sought by the petitioner, it is apparent that the prayers in the writ petition are nothing short of an abuse of process of law and motivated if not an attempt to intimidate the respondent. In fact, even two days ago, this Court had dealt with a writ petition filed by the present petitioner being W.P.(C) 784/2014 wherein equally wide information had been asked for under the RTI Act."
"...This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. A copy of this order is directed to be sent by the Registry to Defence and Law Ministry, so that they may examine the aspect of misuse of this Act, which confers very important and valuable rights upon a citizen"
Delhi High Court 19.01.2016 (WPC 406/2016) in the matter "Shail Sahni versus Smt Valsa Sara Mathew and others"
"Since, despite the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is still filing general, irrelevant and vague queries, this Court dismisses the present writ petition with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to he paid by the petitioner to the Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi within a period of three weeks."
CIC-verdict dated 25.06.2014 (CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA in the matter Mr Ramesh Chand Jain versus Delhi Transport Corporation "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public-authority, first appellate authority and if it reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act."
CIC-verdict dated 25.02.2011 in file-number CIC/LS/C/2009/000770-DS in the matter "Dr Rajender K Singla versus Directorate of Higher Education (Chandigarh), decision-part of which is reproduced as hereunder:
Decision
4. After hearing the averment of the respondents and on perusal of the facts on record, the Commission concludes that undoubtedly, the appellant is misusing the RTI Act to settle personal scores with Page 6 of 14 his former employer. The commission rules that such vexatious applications can be summarily dismissed at the level of the CPIO since it is obvious that these applications are not being preferred in public interest and are in fact adversely impacting the functioning of the public authority instead of strengthening it, which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act."
Considering the submissions made here-above, it is humbly submitted that the petition before your honour may kindly be dismissed. It is also prayed that the CPIO of the College may be empowered to summarily dismiss all petitions of the petitioner in accordance with CIC-verdict dated 25.02.2011 in file-number CIC/LS/C/2009/000770-DS in the matter "Dr Rajender K Singla versus Directorate of Higher Education (Chandigarh) as cited here- above. It is prayed accordingly.
RTI consultant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal (will represent the College before your honour during the CIC-hearing..."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Prof. Madhu Pruthi, Principal, Prof. Jasmeet Singh, PIO, Keshav Mahavidyalaya and Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, RTI Consultant - participated in the hearing.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 07.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
8. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had sought copies of certain documents after inspection of records at CAG's office. He stated that the since the documents were submitted by the Respondent Public Authority Keshav Mahavidyalaya, the RTI application was transferred to PIO, Keshav Mahavidyalaya. He averred that till date copies of those documents have not been provided by the PIO. In addition, no reply has been furnished by the PIO in this regard as per the provisions of RTI Act.Page 7 of 14
9. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that Keshav Mahavidyalaya as such had no response for the RTI application addressed to office of CAG. Furthermore, if CAG office considered appropriate as deemed fit in accordance with provisions of RTI Act, it could by itself provide bulky 1932 pages of documents to the Appellant.
They stated that the Commission that the Appellant is their employee and teaches economics in Keshav Mahavidyalaya. They apprised the Commission that the Appellant has filed about 43 RTI applications with the College and his only aim is to somehow target Keshav Mahavidyalaya through his regularly filed RTI applications. They stated that they have already provided more than 2000 pages to the Appellant in response to his various RTI Applications. They stated that in another case of the same Appellant the Commission vide order 13.08.2024 in case File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/145926 and connected matters, advised the Appellant to exercise his right to information judiciously in the future.
10. After the hearing, written submission dated 18.11.2025 has been filed by the Respondent. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..Kindly refer to CIC-hearing heard at 11:10 am on 18.11.2025 on Second Appeal filed by Shri Praveen Kumar in file-number CIC/KESMH/A/2024/619017. As per esteemed directions of your Honour, during the hearing, a detailed list of 43 RTI applications submitted by Mr Praveen Kumar during a period of 24.01.2023-10.06.2024 (One and half years) is enclosed herewith.
In this regard it is informed that a total number of 2344 copied pages on respective responses available with the college have already been provided to the petitioner..."
Decision:
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant in response to his original RTI Application has already inspected the records in CAG office. It is further noted that in the latest submission filed by the PIO, it has been categorically stated that total number of 2344 pages has been provided to the Appellant in response Page 8 of 14 to his various RTI Applications. Respondents have filed written submission a copy of which be shared with the Appellant within 3 weeks of receipt of this order. As regards the queries in the RTI Application it is observed that the Appellant is trying to play the role of CAG and also assuming the role of an investigation officer which Commission is not inclined to allow, therefore, interference of the Commission is not required. However, if the Appellant feels that he has a strong case of exposing some big scam he should approach the appropriate forum instead of trying to play that role himself.
12. It is further noted that case of same Appellant has already been heard and decided by this Commission and reference in this regard can be made to the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Commission in CIC/UODEL/A/2023/145926 and connected matters, dated 13.8.2024 The relevant extract of the order is as under:
12.".. Here, the Appellant is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions must not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are Page 9 of 14 given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duti duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
13. Having observed as above, the Appellant is strongly advised to exercise his right to information judiciously in the future.
14. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly..."
13. Commission observes that the Appellant is a teaching faculty in Respondent Public Authority-Keshav Mahavidyalaya. Academic faculty is bestowed with the primary duty to teach students not only as per the lessons of the textbooks but also impart knowledge on the latest and most updated published research. To this end, they need to continuously update their knowledge, improve pedagogical skills and ensure high quality teaching in the classroom. When a teacher becomes excessively occupied with activities such as filing frequent RTI Applications- especially when unrelated to academic improvement- it raises questions about the quality, focus and standard of his teaching and the resultant Page 10 of 14 suffering of the students, who can hardly ventilate their discontent for fear of earning the ire of the faculty, some of whom are also designated as PIOs.
14. Be that as it may, Commission notes that the Appellant has filed more than 40 RTI Applications with the Respondent Public Authority that too despite the advisory to him given by the coordinate Bench of this Commission. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It is apparent from the submission of the Appellant that he is trying to create a fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by pressing for penalty against them. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the Appellant, when the Appellant is not in search of information but only trying to settle his perceived role other than teaching as a self-appointed activist against the department by filing multiple, vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by appeals. The Commission further finds it expedient to note that the PIOs are already doing assignment under the RTI Act in addition to their normal duties. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a detailed manner. The relevant extract of ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur is as under:
"..It is noted that the Appellant is a serving government employee under the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore, while taking recourse to the RTI Act for his service-related matters, the Appellant is expected to approach the Public Authorities with clean hands. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Page 11 of 14 Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy.
The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated. Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter."
15. In view of foregoing, the Appellant is informed that his right to information is far from being absolute and he is accordingly once again strongly advised to exercise his right to information judiciously in the future.
16. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the Respondent Public Authority for appointing Academic Officers as designated CPIOs, even though these officers are primarily responsible for teaching and providing professional education to students. This decision was questioned especially in light of the fact that the Public Authority has administrative officers available who are responsible for handling administrative matters. This Bench has already dealt with an identical issue in case No. CIC/SRLTI/A/2025/602913 and connected case titled as Praveen Kumar vs CPIO, Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute, dated 19.07.2024. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
Page 12 of 14"...17. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission is unhappy with the arrangements of the Respondent Public Authority in appointing the Academic Officers as designated CPIO who are solely engaged for teaching and imparting professional education to the students and having direct interface with the students as like the Appellant herein who are the information seeker as well. Such an arrangement is a clear attempt to stonewall the right of students like the Appellant to seek information under the RTI Act by creating a fear of damaging their academic records in one way or the other. It is also not out of place to note that information sought by the Appellant relates to the legitimate rights of the students of access to the hostel accommodation particularly the first year students and the larger public interest in clearly visible in the matters..."
17. In view of the above observations, an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority to appoint the designated CPIOs from their Administrative Section to relieve the teaching staff from this responsibility while also maintaining and the balance of transparency and confidence of public in general in the system and among the student community in particular.
18. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their concerned Competent Authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 13 of 14 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority O/o. the Registrar, Keshav Mahavidyalaya, University of Delhi, H-4/5, Zone Pitampura Delhi-110034 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. Any other recommendation(s) to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005-
Section 25 (5) of The RTI Act Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)