Central Information Commission
Rajeev Jain vs Office Of The Controller General Of ... on 24 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2025/100268
Rajeev Jain .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : Trade Marks Registry, IP ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Bhawan, Near Chankyapuri
Overbridge, Ghatlodia,
Amhedabad - 380061.
Date of Hearing : 23-02-2026
Date of Interim Decision : 23-02-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04-10-2024
CPIO replied on : 06-11-2024
First appeal filed on : 10-11-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 14-11-2024
2nd Appeal dated : 02-01-2025
CIC/CGPDT/A/2025/100268 Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04-10-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. यह कि मेरे द्वारा दिनाांि 04-06-2020 िो समय 19:09:43 में रे फेरें स सांख्या 4095 सदहत डिस्क्रिप्शन NET TXN: CITRUSPAY 042006001753207 27034 िे साथ रुपये 900 मय बैंि शुल्ि 11. 80 सदहत िुल 911.80 िो मेरे यस बैंि िी चालू खाता में से आपिे िायाालय िे बैंि खाता में ऑनलाइन पोर्ा ल िे माध्यम से TM-M फाइल िरने हे तु शुल्ि अिा किया गया था। यह कि अिा किये गये शुल्ि िी रसीि िो प्रमाणित िर सत्यापपत प्रततललपप मुझे िाि द्वारा लिजवाई जायें। सूचना स्क्जस रूप में सांधाररत हैं उसमे उपलब्ध िरवाई जायें। यह कि इस आवेिन पत्र िे साथ इस पवषय में यस बैंि रर्े र्मेंर् िी िॉपी सलांग्न प्ररतुत हैं।
2. यह कि बबन्िु सांख्या 1 िे उपरोक्त अिा किये गये शुल्ि से TM-M नांबर अिा किये गये। यह कि अिा किये गए एप्लीिेशन िो जारी िरने िे ललए जो पत्रावली चलायी गई उसिो प्रमाणित िर सत्यापपत प्रततललपप मुझे िाि द्वारा लिजवाई जायें स्क्जससे यह (रपष्र्ीिरि लेना अतनवाया है) जानिारी लमल सिे िी आपिे द्वारा जो ट्रे िमािा एप्लीिेशन पर प्राप्त शुल्ि िो किस रूप में उपयोग किया गया है। सूचना स्क्जस रूप में सांधाररत हैं उसमे उपलब्ध िरवाई जायें।
3. यह कि मेरे द्वारा दिनाांि 06-06-2020 िो समय 20:55:25 में रे फेरें स सांख्या 57815 सदहत डिस्क्रिप्शन NET TXN: CITRUSPAY 042006001755416 27034 िे साथ रुपये 45000 मय बैंि शुल्ि 11.80 सदहत िुल 45011.80 िो मेरे यस बैंि िी चालू खाता में से आपिे िायाालय िे बैंि खाता में ऑनलाइन पोर्ा ल िे माध्यम से िुल 10 ट्रे िमािा एप्लीिेशन TM-A फाइल िरने हे तु शुल्ि अिा किया गया था। यह कि अिा किये गये शुल्ि िी रसीि िो प्रमाणित िर सत्यापपत प्रततललपप CIC/CGPDT/A/2025/100268 Page 2 of 6 मुझे िाि द्वारा लिजवाई जायें। सूचना स्क्जस रूप में सांधाररत हैं उसमे उपलब्ध िरवाई जायें। यह कि इस आवेिन पत्र िे साथ इस पवषय में यस बैंि रर्े र्मेंर् िी िॉपी सलांग्न प्ररतुत हैं।
4. यह कि बबन्िु सांख्या 3 िे उपरोक्त अिा किये गये शुल्ि से िुल 10 ट्रे िमािा एप्लीिेशन TM-A नांबर अिा किये गये। यह कि अिा किये गए एप्लीिेशन िो जारी िरने िे ललए जो पत्रावली चलायी गई उसिो प्रमाणित िर सत्यापपत प्रततललपप मुझे िाि द्वारा लिजवाई जायें स्क्जससे यह रपष्र्ीिरि लेना अतनवाया है िी आपिे द्वारा िुल 10 ट्रे िमािा एप्लीिेशन पर प्राप्त शुल्ि िो किस रूप में उपयोग किया गया। सूचना स्क्जस रूप में सांधाररत हैं उसमे उपलब्ध िरवाई जायें।
5. यह कि मुझसे चाही गई समरत िरतावेज़ों िी सूची मुझे िाि द्वारा प्रेपषत िराने िा िष्र् िरे । सूचना स्क्जस रूप सांधाररत है उसमे उपलब्ध िरवाई जाये।"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06-11-2024 stating as under:
"With reference to the above mentioned RTI Application it is to inform you that as per the information received from the IT support Team "No cash receipt of dated 06.06.2020 has been found on record". The payment of ten TM-A's was successfully done on 09.06.2020 and the cash receipt no. is 2517657 (Copy enclosed) herewith. And, regarding payment of TM-M it was successfully done on 09.06.2020 (Copy of receipt enclosed) herewith and the same has already been taken on record. Also, enclosing the copy of details of 10 TM-A's and TM-M. Further, in order to get the certified copies you are requested to make the request through TM-M with fees."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10-11-2024. The FAA vide its order dated 14-11-2024, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
CIC/CGPDT/A/2025/100268 Page 3 of 64. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Attended the hearing through video conference. Respondent: Ms. Sanchita, Examiner of Patents, attended the hearing through audio conference.
5. The Appellant stated that he sought certified copies of the receipts of the fee paid by him on 04.06.2020 for an amount of Rs. 900/- & fee paid by him on 06.06.2020 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-. The appellant contended that he sought certified copies of receipts dated 04.06.2020 and 06.06.2020. However, the respondent has provided information regarding payment receipts reflected on 09.06.2020 and he is dissatisfied with the same.
6. The Respondent submitted that the payment pertaining to application number 4054622 alleged to have been paid by the appellant on 04.06.2020 and 06.06.2020 were reflected in their system only on 09.06.2020, which are system generated and based on the actual reflection of payment in their official records. Hence, the copies of payments reflected on 09.06.2020, as available in their records, were provided to the appellant.
Interim Decision:
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the respondent submitted that the payments alleged to have been made by the appellant actually got reflected in their records on 09.06.2020 and hence, they have provided the payment copies dated 09.06.2020 to the appellant. However, CIC/CGPDT/A/2025/100268 Page 4 of 6 the said submission was not explicitly stated in the CPIO's initial reply dated 06.11.2024 and hence it was incomplete. It is the contention of the appellant that he made these payments on 04.06.2020 & 06.06.2024 and the respondent has not provided the sought receipts for the same. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant, incorporating the sought receipts for the payments he made and explicitly stating the facts as regards the payments being reflected in their records at a later date. The respondent shall provide the aforesaid revised reply to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission
- both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-
compliance/add.
9. The Commission finds that the respondent gave incomplete information to the appellant and had not attended the hearing on time at scheduled venue. In view of the above, the respondent is hereby SHOW-CAUSED as to why penalty U/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon him/her for the aforesaid reasons. The respondent is directed to submit detailed written explanation to the Commission for giving incomplete information to the appellant and for not attending the hearing at scheduled time - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is reserved for further orders.
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: 23.02.2026 CIC/CGPDT/A/2025/100268 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Trade Marks Registry, IP Bhawan, Near Chankyapuri Overbridge, Ghatlodia, Amhedabad - 380061.
2. The FAA, Trade Marks Registry, IP Bhawan, Near Chankyapuri Overbridge, Ghatlodia, Amhedabad - 380061.
3. Rajeev Jain CIC/CGPDT/A/2025/100268 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)