Central Information Commission
Riju R vs Fluid Control Research Institute on 15 April, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु िनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/FCRIN/C/2024/657604
CIC/FCRIN/A/2024/656102
Riju R ....िशकायतकता Appellant/complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Fluid Control Research Institute,
Kanjikode West,
Palakkad-678623
Date of Hearing : 13.04.2026
Date of Decision : 15.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
The above-mentioned complaint and appeal are clubbed together as the
appellant/complainant are common and subject-matter is arising from same RTI
Application, hence are being disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from instant matters:
Case No Date of RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA Order Second
Dated appeal/
Complaint
Dated
657604 18.06.2024 17.07.2024 17.08.2024 17.09.2024 25.12.2024
656102 18.06.2024 17.07.2024 17.08.2024 17.09.2024 26.12.2024
Page 1 of 9
Information Sought:
1. The appellant/complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2024
seeking the following information:
"Do FCRI follow record keepings as per RTI act 2005. (yes/No)
a) whether Digitization of records completed. (yes/No)
b) whether File Index maintained in P&A department. (yes/No), if yes
provide the copy of same
2) Do engineers or technicians other than apprentice, casuals under
labour supply contractor, contract employees accompany for site
work.
3) Officers who are Responsible and punishable inside FCRI if the SITE
testing/ calibration are conducted violating NABL guidelines and
cheating of customers.
4) Who inside FCRI is responsible for any accidents happening for
apprentices, Trainees, casuals, casuals under labour supply
contractor, contract employees / workers during site work.
5) Do FCRI mention in site work quotations given to customers that
apprentices, casuals and contract employees / workers are
deployed for site work. (yes/No)
6) Do FCRI send Engineers and technicians for name fake to start the
site work and return back after asking casuals to finish the work.
7) List of site work done by FCRI till now (year wise)
8) Number of apprentice, casual, casuals under labour supply
contractor, contract employees engaged for each site work done
so far.
9) Number of site works done by FCRI till now (year wise)
10) Do FCRI take insurance for damage or loss of instruments used
for site work. (Yes/No)
11) If yes, the amount spend for the above till now (year wise)
12) Name of the category of employees in FCRI other than contract
employees, casual employees, Trainees, apprentices, casual
employees working under labour supply contractors.
13) Whether FCRI provide Hard copy replies, certified copies and in
communications to the RTI applicants with name and designation
seal of PIO /FAA. (Yes/No)
14) Whether FCRI provide Hard copy replies, certified copies and in
communications to the RTI applicants with Office Round seal of
FCRI. (Yes/No)
15) Do FCRI put in office orders/circulars the name, designation seal
of the signatory? (Yes/No)
Page 2 of 9
16) Do FCRI put in office orders/circulars the office round seal of FCRI.
(Yes/No)
17) How many days in advance do FAA of FCRI intimate the RTI
applicant for attending hearing in connection with First appeal.
18) The mode of intimation for the above
19) Is there any pending PF amount to be paid to casual employees
working under labour supply contractor of FCRI (Yes/No ) . If yes
specified the total amount pending and specify month and year
wise.
20) Which FCRI officials are responsible for non- payment of the
above pending PF amount.
For all the RTI questions Serial Number 1 to 20 asked, the certified Hard
copies to be provided to the applicant with signature, Name seal of FCRI
CPIO and Office Round seal of FCRI. Any extra amount payable for copies
to me intimated through RTI online portal.
Kindly give a scanned copy of reply for this RTI to my email id
([email protected] ) also along with reply through this
online portal".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant/complainant on 17.07.2024
stating as under:
"Sub: Request for Information under RTI Act 2005.
Ref: Your RTI Registration no. FCRIN/R/E/24/00011 dated 18.06.2024
With reference to your query, please find our reply as given below.
Information soughtReply by CPIO
1. Do FCRI follow record keepings as 1. Yes per RTI act 2005. (yes/No) Digitization of records is ongoing
a) whether Digitization of records process. completed. (yes/No)
b) whether File Index maintained in P&A department .(yes/No), if yes provide the copy of same
2. Do engineers or technicians other 2. Yes than apprentice, casuals under labour supply contractor, contract employees accompany for site work
3. Officers who are Responsible and 3. FCRI follows a Strict No tolerance punishable inside FCRI if the SITE Policy on violation of Quality and testing/ calibration are conducted Business ethics in its activities. violating NABL guidelines and Every employee is responsible for Page 3 of 9 cheating of customers. the ethical conduct and its maintenance including officers, non-officers, and staff in all categories.
4. Who inside FCRI is responsible for 4. This is an inappropriate RTI Query. any accidents happening for All employees are periodically apprentices, Trainees, casuals, trained, mentored with on-the-job casuals under labour supply learning. Safety is everyone's contractor, contract employees / responsibility. workers during site work.
5. Do FCRI mention in site work 5. This is not an appropriate RTI quotations given to customers Query. Techno- commercial work that apprentices, casuals and Offers are confidential and its contract employees / workers are contents cannot be disclosed deployed for site work. (yes/No)
6. Do FCRI send Engineers and 6. This is not an appropriate RTI Query technicians for name fake to start seeking opinion of CPIO the site work and return back after asking casuals to finish the work.
7. List of site work done by FCRI till 7. The information sought cannot be now (year wise) revealed under Sec. 8(1)(d) as its disclosure would harm the competitive nosition and does not serve public interest.
8. Number of apprentice, casual, 8. Refer response to query 7. casuals under labour supply contractor, contract employees engaged for each site work done so far.
9. Number of site works done by FCRI 9. Refer response to query 7. till now (year wise)
10. Do FCRI take insurance for 10. Yes damage or loss of instruments used for site work. (Yes/No)
11. If yes, the amount spend for the 11. The information sought cannot be above till now (year wise) revealed as its disclosure would harm the competitive position and does not serve a larger public interest.
12. Name of the category of 12. There are no such category of employees in FCRI other than employees.
contract employees, casual employees, Trainees, apprentices, Page 4 of 9 casual employees working under labour supply contractors.
13. Whether FCRI provide Hard copy 13. RTI online applicants are provided replies, certified copies and in response in portal and for communications to the RTI applications received by post, applicants with name and response is sent by post. designation seal of PIO /FAA.
(Yes/No)
14. Whether FCRI provide Hard copy 14. N/A replies, certified copies and in communications to the RTI applicants with Office Round seal of FCRI. (Yes/No)
15. Do FCRI put in office 15. Office Orders/Circulars are for orders/circulars the name, internal / external communications designation seal of the signatory? to employees / etc. and these do (Yes/No) not serve any public interest. The query is therefore inappropriate.
16. Do FCRI put in office 16. Refer reply to query 15. orders/circulars the office round seal of FCRI. (Yes/No)
17. How many days in advance do 17. As per records, there is no FAA of FCRI intimate the RTI mention of specific time period. The applicant for attending hearing in hearing is held at an earliest connection with First appeal. opportunity for any decision to be taken by FAA.
18. The mode of intimation for the 18. Letter could be delivered by one of above many modes including by hand, by email or by post as feasible for speedy delivery.
19. Is there any pending PF amount 19. As per records, the then labour to be paid to casual employees contractor has not submitted working under labour supply challans to FCRI for EPF payments contractor of FCRI (Yes/No ) . If yes for December 2021 and January specified the total amount 2022. An amount about Rs 68000/- pending and specify month and per month for the period. year wise
20. Which FCRI officials are 20. This is an inappropriate query. responsible for non- payment of the above pending PF amount.
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal on 17.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 17.09.2024 stated as under:
Page 5 of 9"Ref: 1. RTI Application No. FCRIN/R /E/24/00011 dated 18-06-2024
2. Response of CPIO No. FCRI/RTI/ 2024-06/11/1030 dated 17-07- 2024
3. Appeal received by email from Mr. Riju R dated 17/08/2024".
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY With reference to an RTI Appeal addressed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) as cited above the FAA examined both the request for information originally sought in the RTI application and the reply provided by CPIO of FCRI. After perusal of these two, and the records available, the FAA observes and concludes that the reply provided by CPIO stands. FAA observes that the CPIO has provided as much information as possible to the RTI Queries. The appeal itself seems to indicate that the Appellant is not interested in seeking information, but only needs confirmation of his own opinions (probably, formed on hearsay). Further, the FAA notes that the Appellant seems to be on some vendetta against the CPIO or public authority, possibly as a means to intimidate the CPIO or for some personal reasons Therefore, considering that information has been provided to the queries, the FAA notes that reply provided by the CPIO stands, and hence FAA does not find any reason to interfere with the reply provided by the CPIO.
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant/complainant approached the Commission with the complaint Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/complainant: Mr. Riju R. Respondent: Mr. U. Muthukumar, FCRI, CPIO
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal and complaint on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The appellant/complainant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was evasive, incomplete and non-speaking in nature. It was contended that several queries were either wrongly termed as Page 6 of 9 "inappropriate" or denied without proper justification under the RTI Act, 2005.
7. Written submissions dated 05.04.2026 field by the appellant/complainant is taken on record which states that the appellant/complainant had filed an RTI application on 18.06.2024 to which an evasive reply was provided on 17.07.2024 and same was upheld by FAA on 17.09.2024.
8. Written submissions dated 06.04.2026 field by the appellant/complainant is taken on record which states the reply of the appellant with respect to EPF payment prove that there was a major administration lapse as no to answer the query no. 20 is provided. It is also submitted that certified copy of denied information be provided to the appellant/complainant. It is also submitted that terms like "inappropriate" and making personal attack in an official order shows lack of transparency in FCRI.
9. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application contained multiple queries, many of which were either hypothetical, opinion-seeking, or related to internal processes and commercial aspects of the organization. It was contended that information which was available on record had been duly provided,
10. Written submissions dated 06.04.2026 and 07.04.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO is taken on record which states that it has come to the notice of the respondent Public Authority that the complainant is collecting information for probably passing on to competitors. It is also stated that the complainant is a casual worker under a contractor at the respondent public authority and he is an office bearer of a trade union and engaging in ant-establishment activities and misconducts. It is also submitted that the information that are of commercial interest including commercial confidence, costing, etc. are sought in the garb of RTI application. The attempts by the RTI applicant are to divert the precious available resources and time of the Public Authority away from operations to cause interruptions and slowdown of administration in order to affect its scientific services. It is also stated that the CPIO has provided reply to all queries in the RTI Application, and has also provided reason why certain information is not provided.
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 most of the queries in the RTI application are in the nature of seeking explanations, opinions, or responses to allegations regarding the functioning of the respondent public authority. The Commissions of the view that such Page 7 of 9 queries do not strictly fall within the ambit of "information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also notes that during the hearing the appellant specifically referred to the point No. 20 of the RTI application, in which the Appellant/complainant had sought to know Which FCRI officials are responsible for non- payment of the above pending PF amount. In this regard the Commission observes that the queries seeking explanations, clarifications, interpretations, or justification of actions taken by the public authority cannot be construed as seeking "information" and therefore do not warrant a response under the RTI Act.
Wirth regard to the complaint the Commission observes that for taking action under section 20 of RTI Act malafide intention must be proved by the complainant on the part of respondent. The Commission would like to place reliance on the case of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely."
In the present case, no such malafide intention or absence of reasonable cause is made out on the part of respondent CPIO and Commission is satisfied that an appropriate reply has been provided by the respondent CPIO to the appellant/complainant.
In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the appeal and complaint are disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 15.04.2026 Page 8 of 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO Fluid Control Research Institute, Kanjikode West, Palakkad-678623
2. 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)