Central Information Commission
Pratap Singh vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 20 February, 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/NCFSC/A/2025/607171
Pratap Singh ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Commission for Scheduled Castes
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 20/02/2026
Date of Decision : 20/02/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 16/12/2024
CPIO replied on 18/12/2024
First appeal filed on 02/01/2025
FAA's order dated 03/02/2025
Second Appeal dated 10/02/2025
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 16/12/2024 seeking the following information:
"1. That the undersigned had submitted an appeal/representation dated 08/11/2024, in person (vide NCSC's Dy. No.637029/2024/Admn. dt.12.11.24) as well as through email, with Hon'ble National Commission for Scheduled Castes under File No.P-10/Delhi-49/2023/SSW-I against the Minutes of Hearing held on 22.08.2024 by Shri Kishor Makwana, Chairperson Hon'ble NCSC wherein it was Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NCFSC/A/2025/607171 Page 1 of 4 decided that "This is policy matter and DTL may take action to place the proposal of career progression of steno cadre before the Board of Directors of the DTL and take action accordingly. Case is closed in the Commission." What is the status of my ibid appeal? In case no action has been taken over it, please specify why?
2. The closure of my case as indicated in the minutes of the hearing dt.22/8/24, is erroneous and in contravention with the Judgement passed by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in case reference Ajit P.K. Jogi versus National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on 15th December, 2006 (copy has already provided with my referred representation dt.08/11/24) wherein it had been inferred that 'Commission consists of Chairperson (Chairman), Vice Chairperson (Vice Chairman) and five other Members, whereas the impugned proceedings/report is signed by Dilip Sing Bhuriya, Chairman and it is not signed by other members. ..... Since the impugned proceeding/report bears only the signature of the Chairman and the specific allegation made by the petitioner is not denied nor the records are produced, we hold that the impugned proceedings/report cannot be regarded as the proceeding/report of the Commission......"
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant dated 18/12/2024 stated as under:
"1.Since the case has been closed in the Commission therefore no action has been taken in the matter. The CPIO is not supposed to give any reply of the question under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. The CPIO is not supposed to give any reply of the question under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant, filed a First Appeal dated 02/01/2025. The FAA vide its order dated 03/02/2025, held as under:-
".....1. Whereas the undersigned called the concerned CPIO along with all the relevant records and files to discuss the appeal and it is observed that the information sought by the applicant in his RTI application dated 16.12.2024 has been provided / furnished by the Central Public Information Officer, NCSC to the Appellant vide letter of even number dated 18.12.2024 (copy enclosed) as per record.
2. It is further observed that the applicant in its RTI application had also sought information in the form of 'why' reasons etc. The same does not cover under the Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NCFSC/A/2025/607171 Page 2 of 4 definition of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, there was no denial of information by the CPIO, NCSC.
3. In view of above, this appeal is disposed of.
4. The Appellate Authority orders accordingly."
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission by filing instant Second appeal on 10/02/2025.
Written Submission of the Respondent dated 11/02/2026 is taken on record.
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: KL Meena, CPIO/SO participated in the hearing in Person The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the incorrect information was provided by the Respondent. The respondent submits that the information on record was provided to the Appellant, further apprises the commission that the minutes of the hearing was given to the Appellant.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Commission notes that giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc. are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO.
It is further directed to the Respondent to send the Copy of the Written Submission dated 11/02/2026 to the Appellant free of cost via email and speed post within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and accordingly send a compliance report to this effect to the commission within 7 days thereafter.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. The Appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 20.02.2026 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NCFSC/A/2025/607171 Page 3 of 4 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. CPIO National Commission for Scheduled Castes, 5th Floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003
2. Pratap Singh Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/NCFSC/A/2025/607171 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)