Central Information Commission
N Rajaraman vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 29 January, 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/2024/120465
N Rajaraman .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : Directorate General, ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg, Mandi
House, New Delhi - 110001.
Date of Hearing : 29-01-2026
Date of Decision : 29-01-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28-02-2024
CPIO replied on :
First appeal filed on : 01-04-2024
First Appellate Authority's order :
2nd Appeal dated : 20-06-2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28-02-2024 seeking the following information:
"Information Required CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/120465 Page 1 of 3 It is noticed by general public that Smt ANDAL PRIYADARSHINI, who retired as Director of Doordarshan Kendra Branch in Tamil Nadu, joined a party, which is not a religious, social service or charitable institution, and is functioning as a spokesperson of the party. She is participating as a representative of that party in debates organized by private Television Channels and is paid remuneration therefor by the private T.V. Channels concerned.
I request information about the permission granted by the Doordarshan Kendra of Ministry of Information and Broad Casting, Govt of India and the conditions under which the permission was granted to Smt Andal Priyadarshini to join the party preferred by her."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 01-04-2024, FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. Surender Singh, DDG (Nodal Officer) along with Ms. Priyanka Garg, SO, attended the hearing in person.
4. The Respondent submitted that the address for the CPIO of Public Authority in the RTI Application is incomplete, and perhaps this is why they have not received the same. The respondent submitted that after receiving the hearing notice of the Commission, they have verified from their Delhi Office about the RTI Application and they have confirmed that they have not received the same. The respondent further submitted that the sought information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 27.01.2026.
5. Written submission dated 27.01.2026 along with reply addressed to the appellant filed by the respondent is taken on record.
CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/120465 Page 2 of 3Decision:
6. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the respondent has already provided the sought information to the appellant vide letter dated 27.01.2026. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
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: 29.01.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Directorate General, Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The FAA, Directorate General, Doordarshan, Copernicus Marg, Mandi House, New Delhi - 110001
3. N Rajaraman CIC/PBSEC/A/2024/120465 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)