Central Information Commission
Pramod Lohiya vs Gnctd on 13 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
Pramod Lohiya ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Development Department,
GNCTD ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.12.2023 FA : 11.03.2024 SA : 05.08.2024
CPIO : 05.03.2024 &
FAO : 25.04.2024 Hearing : 29.01.2026
10.05.2024
Date of Decision: 05.02.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2023, before the CPIO, Development Department, GNCTD, seeking information as under:
"1. According to your office record, provide the list of government departments responsible for issuing mandatory No Dues Certificate / Vigilance Clearance before retirement of a Class 'III' officer of Delhi government for pension, gratuity and other benefits after retirement.Page 1 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
2. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh was retired or suspended from Agriculture Department.
3. According to your office record, provide certified copy of order of retirement issued by Agriculture Department to Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh.
4. According to your office record, provide certified copy of order of retirement issued by Development Department (HQ) to Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh.
5. According to your office record, Joint Director Agriculture Department issued No Dues Certificate / Vigilance Clearance to Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh before his retirement for pension, gratuity and other benefits after retirement. Provide certified copy of the aforesaid No Dues Certificate / Vigilance Clearance.
6. According to your office record, Development Department (HQ) issued No Dues Certificate /Vigilance Clearance to Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh before his retirement for pension, gratuity and other benefits after retirement. Provide certified copy of the aforesaid No Dues Certificate/Vigilance Clearance.
7. According to your office record, government departments issued No Dues Certificate /Clearance, Vigilance Clearance to Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh for his retirement. Provide the list of those government departments.
8. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh submitted Charge List to Agriculture Department during his retirement. Provide certified copy of the Charge List.
9. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Ballam Singh submitted Charge List to Development Department (HQ) during his retirement. Provide certified copy of the Charge List.
10. According to your office record, JD(A) Sh. A.P. Saini submitted Charge List to Agriculture Department during his retirement. Provide certified copy of the Charge List.Page 2 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
11. According to your office record, JD(A) Sh. A.P. Saini submitted Charge List to Development Department (HQ) during his retirement. Provide certified copy of the Charge List.
12. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar was retired or suspended from Agriculture Department.
13. According to your office record, provide certified copy copy of order of retirement issued by Agriculture Department to Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar.
14. According to your office record, provide certified copy of order of retirement issued by Development Department (HQ) to Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar.
15. According to your office record, Agriculture Department Joint Director issued No Dues Certificate / Vigilance Clearance to Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar before his retirement for pension, gratuity and other benefits after retirement. Provide certified copy of the aforesaid No Dues Certificate / Vigilance Clearance.
16. According to your office record, Development Department (HQ) issued No Dues Certificate /Vigilance Clearance to Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar before his retirement for pension, gratuity and other benefits after retirement. Provide certified copy of the aforesaid No Dues Certificate / Vigilance Clearance.
17. According to your office record, government departments issued No Dues Certificate /Vigilance Clearance, Vigilance Clearance to Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar for his retirement. Provide the list of those government departments.
18. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar submitted Charge List to Agriculture Department during his retirement. Provide certified copy of the Charge List.Page 3 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
19. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar submitted Charge List to Development Department (HQ) during his retirement. Provide certified copy of the Charge List.
20. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar was suspended on dt. 28.01.2022 through office order no.
F.38(214)/Vig./Comp./2018/Dev.HQ/Pt.file-1/207. Provide certified copy of the Suspension order.
21. According to your office record, Seed Inspector Sh. Arvind Kumar Gangwar re- joined on dt. 31.01.2022. Provide certified copy of the re-Joining order."
2. The CPIO & Dy. Director (Agri.), Development Department, GNCTD, replied to the RTI Application (upon transfer of the RTI Application on 11.01.2024 from HQ), that was claimed to have been received by the Appellant via WhatsApp on 05.03.2024, stating as under:
"Sub:- Reply to the transfer of RTI application under section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 in respect Sh. Pramod Lohia, C-3/1 Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007 vide ID No. 101/JDA received in this office vide Dy. No. 2985/JDA dated 12/01/2024.
Point No 1 to 21- The third-party information cannot deliver as per sub-section 1 of section 11 of RTI Act-2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2024, before the FAA & Spl. Development Commissioner, Development Department, GNCTD, stating as under:
"No action taken report has been given along with the aforesaid RTI reply given by PIO/Deputy Director (Agri.) for point no. 1 which can proof that any action was taken by Department on complaint dt. 05.06.2023 whose diary no. is 1539. So Applicant not satisfy with the answer/reply of Question No. 1.Page 4 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
Answers to the points no. 1 to 21 was given as "the third party information cannot deliver as per sub section 1 of section 11 of RTI 2005". The questions posed by the appellant regarding government employees and their tiles are indeed pertinent under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. Information related to government employees, especially from their official files maintained by government departments, does not fall under the category of third-party information. Therefore, the PIO's attempt to withhold or provide evasive responses to these queries raises suspicions of possible corruption or misconduct. It is crucial for the PIO to adhere to the principles of transparency and accountability mandated by the RTI Act and provide complete and accurate information to the appellant without any attempts to mislead or conceal relevant details."
4. The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2024, held as under:
"PIO may follow section-11 of the RTI Act, 2005 to consider this request and provide information after following the due procedure therein as per provisions within 15 days. Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
5. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a reply dated 10.05.2024 to the Appellant, as under:
"Please refer to the subject citied above, the F.A.A. directed to the PIO may follow section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 to consider this request and provide the information after following the due procedure therein as per provision of RTI Act within 15 days to the applicant.
In respect of the above the pointwise reply of the RTI application dt. 07.03.2024 of the applicant/appellant is given as under which provide by the licensing authority (seed) unit and establishment branch of Joint Director Agriculture office :-
1. As per record available in this office such information is not available.
2. The point no. 2 being 3d party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
Page 5 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
3. The point no. 3 being 3d party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
4. The point no. 4 being 3 party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
5. The point no. 5 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
6. The point no. 6 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
7. The point no. 7 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
8. As per record available in this office such information is not available.
9. As per record available in this office such information is not available.
10. As per record available in this office such information is not available.
11. As per record available in this office such information is not available.
12. The point no. 12 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
13. The point no. 13 being 3d party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
14. The point no. 14 being 3d party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
15. The point no. 15 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
16. The point no. 16 being 3d party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
Page 6 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
17. The point no. 17 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
18. As per record available in this office such information is not available.
19. As per record available in this office such information is not available.
20. The point no. 20 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed.
21. The point no. 21 being 3rd party information under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, cannot be disclosed."
6. Aggrieved with the reply provided by the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 05.08.2024, stating as under:
"3. That the PIO/Deputy Director (Agri.) failed to give reply of the RTI application to the Appellant within the stipulated time period as per RTI Act 2005. When the appellant visited the office of PIO/Deputy Director (Agri.) on dt. 04.03.2024 then the PIO sent the reply PDF through Whatsapp on dt. 05.03.2024.
4. That being aggrieved from the reply, the appellant filed the first appeal before the First Appellant Authority, Special Development Commissioner on dated 11.03.2024, who disposed off the first appeal on dated 25.04.2024, ordering "PIO may follow section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 to consider this request and provide information after following the due procedure therein as per provisions within 15 days. Appeal is disposed off accordingly." Regrettably, and unexpectedly, the PIO failed to provide accurate responses to Question No. 2 to 7, 12 to 17, 20, and 21. It is apparent that the PIO/Deputy Director (Agri.) did not treat the appellant's RTI request with due seriousness and did not furnish correct, comprehensive, and lawful answers. Consequently, the PIO has failed to deliver a satisfactory revised response to the appellant.
5. The issue at hand pertains to substantial allegations of corruption. The retiring officers have failed to submit any charge lists, office files, or departmental documents to Page 7 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604 their respective departments. Since the inception of the appellant's RTI request, the PIO has demonstrated a consistent lack of seriousness and appears to be shielding these officers by neglecting to furnish satisfactory, accurate, and lawful responses to the aforementioned queries."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
7. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite due service of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, Dinesh Kumar Meena, Section Officer & Rep. of CPIO, attended the hearing in person.
8. The Commission took on record the written submissions (undated), filed by the Appellant during the pendency of the decision in the matter, while explaining the reasons for his absence during the hearing, inter alia, he states as under:
"2. That the Appellant respectfully submits that the information sought under the RTI application does not pertain to any third party within the meaning of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information requested exclusively relates to actions, decisions, and records maintained by public authorities in the discharge of their official functions.
3. That the information sought is part of official government records, created, maintained, and held by public authorities in the normal course of administrative functioning. The same neither concerns the personal information of any individual nor attracts any exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. That the information pertains to public officials acting in their official capacity while performing statutory and administrative duties. It is settled law that acts done by public servants in the course of official duty cannot be treated as personal or third-party information.
5. That the Appellant has not sought any information which is private, confidential, or personal in nature. The request is limited strictly to records reflecting official conduct, compliance with rules, and administrative decision-making by public authorities.Page 8 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
6. That the disclosure of the information sought squarely serves the larger public interest, as it promotes transparency, accountability, and probity in public administration, which is the very object and spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
7. That denial of such information on the ground of "third party" or otherwise would amount to an arbitrary restriction on the statutory right of the Appellant and would defeat the purpose of the Act.
8. In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to direct the Respondent Public Authority to furnish the complete and correct information along with certified copies as sought by the Appellant."
9. The Representative of the Respondent reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant and submitted that so far about 35 RTI Applications have been filed by the Appellant. Further, the Commission took on record the written submissions dated 05.08.2024, filed by the CPIO rebutting the grounds of the second appeal, as under:
"3. Para No.3 of appeal is wrong and denied that RTI application dated 7.03.2024 of the applicant was received in the O/o Joint director (Agri.) vide. Diary No. 2985 on date 12.01.2024 and the reply of the same was sent to the applicant/appellant vide. This office letter No.F.1(69)/101/RTI/JDA/2024/3209 dated 05.02.2024 (copy enclosed herewith).
4. Para No.4 of the appeal, it is fact that the appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 11.03.2024, which was heard before the first appellate authority dated 25.04.2024 and directed by the first appellate authority vide his order dated 25.04.2024, the reply of the first appeal was sent to the appellant vide this office letter no. F.1(69)/79/RTI/JDA/2023/351 dated 10.05.2024 (Copy enclosed herewith).
5. Para No.5 is wrong and denied that as per direction of first appellate authority vide order dated 254.2024. The PIO follow the section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, and reply to the appellant on dated 10.05.2024.Page 9 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
The prayer para is also wrong and denied, the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner by the appellant is barred by limitation of time, and hence the present second appeal may please be dismissed in favour of the respondent."
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the information sought at points 2 to 7, 12 to 17, 20, and 21 of the RTI Application, in respect of which the instant second appeal lies, seeks the service-related personal information of third parties. The CPIO's reply denied the information appropriately in principle, however, the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was not specified therein, instead, the provision of Section 11, which is a procedural clause, was erroneously quoted. The FAA also failed to take notice of the erroneous mention of the provision of Section 11, and at the same time, it was not appreciated that Section 11 of the RTI Act becomes operative, when the CPIO "intends" to disclose the information and not as a matter of routine practice. The FAA's direction to the CPIO, to subsequently process Section 11 of the RTI Act was without rationale, and thus unwarranted.
11. Now, the sum and substance of the Appellant's arguments is that the information sought by him is not personal information, as it relates to public officials in exercise of their public duties. Here, it will be relevant to refer to the Apex Court's Constitution Bench judgment, in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, wherein the facets of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act have been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, as under:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information.Page 10 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604
Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy...... This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied
12. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. However, in view of para 10 above, the CPIO & FAA are cautioned against improper mention of the provisions of the RTI Act in their replies and order, respectively, in the future.
13. Lastly, the Commission finds that the CPIO has adequately rebutted the allegation of delay caused in replying to the RTI Application, as stated in the grounds of second appeal, but not insisted or reiterated at this stage in the written submissions of the Appellant.
14. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 05.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 11 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604 Page 12 of 12 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2024/125604 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)