Central Information Commission
Paramjeet Yadav vs Department Of School Education & ... on 20 April, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DSELI/A/2024/138680
Paramjeet Yadav .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO,
Principal, PM Shree Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Village & Post- Odhan,
Dist. Sirsa, Haryana- 125077. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.01.2026
Date of Decision : 12.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2024
CPIO replied on : 29.07.2024
First appeal filed on : 28.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 10.09.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.11.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2024 seeking the following information:
"On the above subject as your goodself is aware that my brother. Prop. of M/s Jagjeet Fruit & Vegetables. Mandi Dabwali had been supplying you the fruit & vegetables for use of the students at your vidyalya for abot 3 years and you, all of a sudden and arbitrarily, terminated this Page 1 of 7 contract after our last supply on dated 05/12/2022 with only and only motive of appointment of one of the relative of Mr. Charitar Narang (S.O.) as supplyer of fruits and vegetables on handsome commission basis. In this regard please supply me the certified copies of the following information, as under:-
Information must be certified by the SPIO Information should pertain to the contract regarding supply of fruit & vegetables to your Vidyalya.
Information may please be given in the form in which it is demanded.
Information be given for the period from 01/01/2019 to 31/05/2024.
Information required 1 Please supply me the copies of documentary record of amounts spent on publicatios (in the news papers) inviting the tenders for the said purpose and for the said period.
2 Please supply me the copies of all the notices or advertisements published in the local news papers for the said purpose and for the said period.
3 Supply me (1) the copies of all the quotations received during the said period for the said purpose along with (2) copies of Dak Received Register and (3) Dak Dispatch Register for the said period. 4 Give me (1) the names, designations and qualifications of officer of PAC committee members and (2) Master on duty (MOD). 5 Give me the name address of the Laboratory from where the quality of materials was/is checked by your vidyalya.
Give me the certified copies of reprts of rejections and sanctions retained at your Vidayla for the said period.
7 Give me the copy of Order of Black Listing of M/s Jagjeet Fruit & Vegetables, Mandi Dabwali.
8 Give me the copies of other black listed suppliers during the said period. Give me the copy of designation of Mr. Charitar Narang (S.O.) posted at your Vidayalya Page 2 of 7 10 Give me the copy of service conditions under which Mr. Charitar Narang (S.O.) is appointed at your Vidyalya.
Give me the copy of permanent residence of Mr. Charitar Narang (S.O.) who is appointed at your Vidyalya 12 Give me the copy of detaile of property, disclosed if any, by Mr. Charitar Narang (S.O.) as desired under the rules of the government. 13 Supply me the total salary and allowances given to Mr. Charitar Narang (S.O.) appointed at your Vidyalya.
14 Give me the duty list of Mr. Charitar Narang (S.O.) appointed at your Vidyalya 15 Give me the retirement date of Mr. Charitar Narang. 16 Please give me the record of relation of Mr. Charitar Narang with the fruit and vegetable supplier Co. named Dumra Fruit Co. Sirsa. 17 Give me the copies of record of rejected (1) applications (2) quotations and (3) Lab. Tests for the said period.
18 Give me the detailed documentary record of dated 05/12/2022 regarding low quality supply of carrot, potato and banana by our firm along with report of physical inspection committee and mess captain etc. in terms of your letter No. 3376 dated 05/12/2022. 19 Please inform (1) whether fresh carrot, potato and banana were purchased on 05/12/2022 or (2) the so-called low quality carrot, potato and banana were served to the students along with (3) copies of bills of fresh perchase, if any.
20 Give me the copy of end use of so-called low quality supply of carrot, potato and banana by our firm on dated 05/12/0222. 21 Give me copies of all the reports of physical inspection committee and mess captain et for the last 3 years in terms of your RTI reply vide your letter No. 711 dated 01/05/2024."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.07.2024 stating as under:
सं िव ालय अिभलेखों के अनुसार उ र 01 to 03 िदनां क 12.07.2024 राि म िव ालय के कायालय म आगजनी की घटना के कारण सम रकॉड जल कर न हो चु का है । अतः सूचना उपल नहीं करवाई जा सकती। पुिलस डायरी तथा दमकल के की रपोट की कॉपी संल है ।
Page 3 of 704 1. ाचाय जनिव ओढा अ
2. िजला िश ा अिधकारी िसरसा सद
3. ाचाय, रा०व०मा० िव ालय (नजदीकी) सद
4. उप- ाचाय/व र तम िश क जनिव ओढां सद
5. अ , िव० बं ध सिमित ारा नािमत अिधकारी-सदमा र ऑन ू टी िव ालय के िश कों को रोटे शन के आधार पर लगाया जाता है। े क िदन एक िश क यह ूटी दान करते ह।
05 इस काय के िलए िव ालय र पर ेक माह की स ापन कमेटी बनाई जाती है । िजसके ारा ा होने वाली साम ी को चैक व स ापन िकया जाता है।
06, 07, िदनां क 12.07.2024 राि म िव ालय के कायालय म आगजनी की घटना के 08 कारण सम रकॉड जल कर न हो चु का है । अतः सूचना उपल नहीं करवाई जा सकती। पुिलस डायरी तथा दमकल के की रपोट की कॉपी संल है ।
09 to 16 वां िछत सूचना गत है । अतः सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम-2005 की धारा 8-1(j) के तहत गत सूचना दे ने का ावधान नहीं है ।
17 to 21 िदनां क 12.07.2024 राि म िव ालय के कायालय म आगजनी की घटना के कारण सम रकॉड जल कर न हो चुका है । अतः सूचना उपल नहीं करवाई जा सकती। पुिलस डायरी तथा दमकल के की रपोट की कॉपी संल है ।
3. Being dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 10.09.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO against point No. 1 to 8 and 17 to 21 of RTI Application. However, for point No. 9 to 16 of RTI application, the FAA directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply intimating the factual position in the matter.
4. Challenging the FAA's order dated 10.09.2024, Appellant is before the Commission by filing the instant Second Appeal on the ground of alleged denial of information by the CPIO.
Relevant facts emerged during hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Lalit Kalra, Principal-cum-PIO along with Shri Cheripar Lal, Office Superintendent present through video conference.Page 4 of 7
5. A letter dated 05.01.2023 filed by the Appellant seeking exemption from participation in the hearing proceedings with the prayer that the instant Appeal may be decided on merits. The letter was taken on record.
6. A written submission dated 28.12.2025 filed by Shri Lalit Kalra, PIO is also taken on record. He denied the allegations of the Appellant by clarifying the fact that brother of the Appellant was one of the contractors who won the tender of supplying vegetables and fruits to the Respondent Public Authority for giving mid-day meals to their students for about 550 number. During services, various deficiencies were noticed in the supply of said contractors regarding which three warning letters were issued to the contractor and thereafter, his tender had been cancelled by the JNV. In response to which the Appellant filed complaints against JNV before the CVC and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Respondent apprised the Bench that Appellant never turned up for hearing despite service and having filed the complaints for the reasons best known to him.
7. CPIO also clarified that there is no relationship between the current contractor supplier and the Section Officer of Respondent Public Authority to favour other party as alleged by the Appellant. On the advice of the Bench, the CPIO agreed to file a revised written submission incorporating all the additional facts that were placed before the Commission pertaining to this case. As regards the instant RTI application, CPIO added that point-wise reply clarifying factual position was already furnished to the Appellant initially vide letter dated 29.07.2024 and again vide letter dated 28.12.2025.
8. On hearing the oral submissions made by the CPIO, the Bench tried to connect the Appellant on audio call for factual clarifications in the matter, however, there is no response from the Appellant. Accordingly, the Commission deems it fit to decide the case on merits.
9. Later, the Commission is in receipt of revised written statement dated 12.01.2026 which is taken on record.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the Respondents and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant being an advocate by profession has sought the information on behalf of his brother who used to be supplier of vegetables/ fruits to the Respondent Public Authority. In the absence of any fact stated by the Page 5 of 7 Appellant as to why is he seeking details on behalf of his brother who can personally ask information as a citizen, it appears that the Appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se which is not permissible in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in the case titled N. Sarvanan Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu SIC (W.P. (MD) No. 4336 of 2017). The relevant extract is reproduced as under:
"4. The first respondent dismissed the appeal on the premise that the petitioner being a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client. As a citizen he can personally ask for information but not as an advocate on behalf of his client. The reasoning given by the first respondent cannot be faulted at all. The second appeal filed by the petitioner has been rightly rejected, as otherwise, every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the R.T.I. Act for getting information on behalf of his client, which situation does not advance the objects of the scheme of the R.T.I. Act. The laudable objects of the R.T.I. Act cannot be used for personal ends and should not become a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practise.
5. In such circumstances, the order of the 1st respondent, dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner does not suffer from infirmity and does not call for interference. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and substance and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
11. Notwithstanding the aforesaid and ignoring the above said aspect, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO it was found to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Appellant did not appear during hearing to contest the version of the CPIO.
12. However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, Shri Lalit Kalra, CPIO is directed to share a copy of his written submission dated 28.12.2025 and 12.01.2026, along with enclosures, free of charge to the Appellant within one day of the date of receipt of this order. A proof of service be filed before the Commission, immediately thereafter.
13. In the light of above, no further intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter at this juncture.
Page 6 of 7The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Paramjeet Yadav, Advocate Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)