Central Information Commission
R Buvaneshvari vs Ut Of Puducherry on 30 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/UTPON/C/2024/120135
R Buvaneshvari ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Puducherry Technological
University, Puducherry ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 12.03.2024 FA : Not on record Complaint : 20.06.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 19.01.2026
Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide the copy of file Noting No.PEC/PRIN/PA/Note/2020 0374 dated 12th February 2020 along with all relevant documents for willingness obtained from faculty of PEC for the post of Principal appointment at Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology (PKIET), karaikal.
(ii) Please furnish the copy of file Notesheet along with relevant documents received from Directorate of Higher and Technical Education (DHTE) for willingness for Page 1 of 5 the post of Principal appointment at Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Institute of Engineering and Technology (PKIET), karaikal to PTU.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 20.06.2024.
3. PIO furnished reply dated 20.06.2024 as under:
1. Copy enclosed
2. Copy not available in our records.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms. J. Talachechery, Assistant Registrar, Shri Kalaiselvi, Assistant Registrar - participated in the hearing through video-conference.
4. The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 20.06.2024. They averred that information sought at point No. 1 has been duly provided to the Complainant. As regards point No. 2 no such information is available in their official records. A written submission dated 08.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
With reference to the letter cited above, the particulars sought by R. Buvaneshvari, No. 3, Chloride Road, Keezhakasakudy, Karaikal 609 609, (Puducherry), was already sent to the applicant vide No.PTU/E15/RTI Reply/2024/988 dated 20.06.2024 through Registered Post on 21.06.2024 copy enclosed here with.
Decision:
5. At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission dated 08.01.2026 and reply dated 20.06.2024 along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from Page 2 of 5 the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
6. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
7. Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the Page 3 of 5 case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
8. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
9. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no mala fide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO O/o the Deputy Registrar, Puducherry Technological University (Govt. of Puducherry), East Coast Road, Pillaichavady, Puducherry-605014.
2 R Buvaneshvari Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)