Central Information Commission
Nagraj Janardan Patil vs National Dairy Research Institute ... on 14 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा/Second Appeal No. CIC/NDRES/A/2024/123981
Nagraj Janardan Patil .... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR)
Gujarat ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Date of Hearing : 13/01/2026
Date of Decision : 13/01/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25/03/2024
CPIO replied on : 10/04/2024
First appeal filed on : 16/04/2024
FAA's order dated : 29/04/2024
Second Appeal dated : 10/06/2024
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 25/03/2024 seeking the following information:-
Particulars of Information required
i) Subject matter of information: - Jalgaon milk union meetings.
ii) Period to which information relates from: - 1/01/2020 to 31/12/2020
iii) Description of information required A) Copies of document received from Jalgaon Milk Union wherein representative of NDDB was requested to attend meeting of board of director and of expert committee of Jalgaon Milk Union.
B) Copies of document indicating name and designation of employee of NDDB, who was directed to attend the meetings at Jalgaon Milk Union. C) Copies of documents of resolution passed by Jalgaon Milk Union in abovesaid meetings of Board of Directors and of Expert Committee.
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10/04/2024 stating as under:
"The Information sought is available with NDDB under fiduciary capacity which is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(e) of RTI Act 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant, filed a First Appeal dated 16/04/2024. The FAA vide its order dated 29/04/2024, held as under:-
"Apropos your Appeal dated 16.04.2024, I have noted the contents of the said Appeal and also read your RTI Application No. 10/2024 dated 25.03.2024 and the reply of CPIO, NDDB dated 10.04.2024 to your aforesaid RTI Application. It is observed that the language used by you in the RTI Appeal is defamatory about the officer of NDDB. You cannot adjudge any act of the person as illegal and criminal, unless it is proved in the Competent Court of law. You are hereby informed that RTI Act is for seeking information and not for levelling baseless, false and malicious allegations. If we observe that you are using the RTI Act as the platform for levelling such baseless, false and malicious allegations, we will be constrained henceforth not to respond to your RTI Application(s)/Appeal(s) under the RTI Act for such allegations.
Upon perusal of aforesaid documents, I wish to submit that the CPIO, NDDB has replied to the queries raised in your RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
In view of the foregoing, your Appeal has no merit as CPIO, NDDB has replied to your queries as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, your contentions raised in the Appeal have no merits and therefore the reply of CPIO, NDDB does not warrant any interference.
With the above observations, your appeal is disposed of without prejudice."
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission by filing instant Second appeal on 10/06/2024.
4. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: present through video conferencing. Respondent: Hari Kumar CPIO, Sanjavi Nagrajan, Senior Manager and Pallavi Joshi, Manager Legal participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO. The Respondent submits that the information sought is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and further apprises the bench that the matter has already been heard and decided by the commission.
Decision The Commission at the outset observes that an appeal arising from identical RTI application of the appellant has already been heard and previously decided by this Commission, in the case no. CIC/DOAHD/A/2024/119225/DAHDD dated 22.12.2025. The present appeal and the previously adjudicated matter, as mentioned hereinabove, pertains to the similar RTI application filed by the appellant. Hence, by the application of the principle of res-judicata, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted.
The appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 13.01.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:
1. Central Public Information Officer, National Diary Development Board, Chandralok Society, NDDB, Anand, Gujarat 388001
2. Nagraj Janardan Patil Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)