Central Information Commission
Pradip Kumar vs Reserve Bank Of India on 12 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/638991
Pradip Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bharatiya Reserve
Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd., ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Bengaluru
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.03.2024 FA : 08.05.2024 SA : 01.09.2024
CPIO : 23.04.2024 FAO : 03.06.2024 Hearing : 22.12.2025
Date of Decision: 22.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Copy of the Enquiry report and the proposed penalty to be awarded to me by the Disciplinary Authority, which had been mentioned by you in Charge Sheet number BNM No C-225/06.03.01(60467)/2022-23 dated 21.09.2022.
2. Copy of approval of the concerned authority showing the reason for withholding my EL encashment of Rs 30 lakh, since it has been noticed that the withhold amount of other officer in this case has been released by the Disciplinary Authority.Page 1 of 16
3. Approval of the concerned authority to withdraw my PLR amount of Rs 3,89,866/- from my salary account number ******0985 from SBI on 28.12.2020.
4. Copy of prior intimation if any given to me for withdrawal of my PLR by the concerned authority.
5. Copy of the approval to continue my leave encashment kept on hold after completing of 1st Enquiry in October 2020 and subsequently submission of 2nd Enquiry report on 11.08.2023 by Enquiry officer.
.... etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The status regarding the enquiry proceedings in respect of Charge Sheet issued vide BNM No. C- 181 / 06.03.01 (60467) / 2019-20 dated December 16, 2019 was already communicated to you vide "NOTICE" letter BNM No. C - 40 / 06.03.01(60467) / 2021-22 dated June 16, 2021.
You have acknowledged receipt of the above Notice vide email dated August 9, 2021.
It has already been communicated to you at paragraph 3 of the Notice as under;
"QUOTE
3. Now, therefore, please take notice that the earlier actions initiated / proceedings concluded by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter stands withdrawn, and a de novo common enquiry into the lapses / actual loss caused to the Company will be held. Accordingly, a modified Show-cause Notice / letter calling for explanation on the lapses pertaining to you will be issued to you. UNQUOTE"
2. Copy of Office Order No.397 dated December 31, 2020 issued to you by Salboni Office is enclosed. It is mentioned at paragraph 3 of the Office Order that the grant / release of non-statutory retirement benefits and non-statutory gratuitous Page 2 of 16 payments if any, shall be contingent upon and subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against you and the final orders of the Disciplinary Authority.
3. Please refer to reply given at SI.No.2 above.
4. Information not held.
5. Please refer to reply given at SI.No.2 above.
Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.09.2024.
5. The appellant Pradip Kumar and on behalf of the respondent Subodh Kumar, GM attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the CPIO and the FAA had failed to provide critical documents, particularly, the 2nd stage advice letter from the CVC, relevant to his case. Therefore, he prayed for disclosure of complete information. Further, he contended that there were discrepancies and unfair handling in his inquiry proceedings, including proposal of unjust major penalties after his retirement. The Appellant requested the Commission to consider his latest written submissions, which are taken on record and are extracted below:
"...The Respondent's written submission dated 12.12.2025 contains a clear and unequivocal admission that the enquiry proceedings had already concluded much prior to the RTI denial dated 23.04.2024. The Respondent admits that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 11.08.2023, that the report was forwarded to the Appellant on 04.09.2023 for representation, that the Appellant submitted his Page 3 of 16 representation on 19.09.2023, and that the Disciplinary Authority issued a tentative assessment order on 27.12.2023. The Respondent further admits that the matter was forwarded to the CVO and thereafter to the CVC for advice, and at pages 5 and 6 of 9 of the written submission expressly states that "the enquiry proceedings and the subsequent actions have been completed as per the model timelines prescribed by the CVC, New Delhi." This categorical admission conclusively establishes that no enquiry or investigation was pending as on 23.04.2024, the date on which information was denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) the RTI Act. Once enquiry proceedings stand concluded and findings are recorded, the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) * ceases to apply as a matter of settled law. The Respondent's own pleadings therefore render the RTI denial factually incorrect, internally contradictory, and legally unsustainable. Instead of demonstrating how the specific documents sought fall within any exemption under Sections 8(1)(h) or 8(1)(j) the Respondent's submission largely attempts to justify the disciplinary process and its outcome. It is settled that RTI denial cannot be justified merely by citing the existence or continuation of disciplinary proceedings. The public authority is required to demonstrate document-specific impediment to disclosure, which the Respondent has wholly failed to do. The denial therefore does not meet the statutory threshold under the RTI Act.
The Appellant had specifically sought disclosure of the censure order dated 11.12.2019, which is a final speaking order, is expressly recorded in the CVO report dated 17.05.2021, and was admittedly relied upon in subsequent disciplinary proceedings. Despite the admitted existence of this order, disclosure was denied on 23.04.2024. Once a censure order is issued, it constitutes "information" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and cannot be withheld after conclusion of proceedings. The invocation of Section 8(1)(j) to deny Page 4 of 16 this document is wholly misconceived, as the censure order relates to the Appellant himself, concerns official acts performed within a public authority, and forms part of institutional decision-making. It is neither personal information nor exempt from disclosure.
The contradiction in the Respondent's conduct is further evident from the fact that the punishment order dated 25.06.2024 explicitly relies upon earlier enquiry reports, findings, and past disciplinary actions, while these very records were denied under RTI on 23.04.2024. This contradiction itself establishes that the records exist, are held by the public authority, and were actively relied upon, making their non-disclosure illegal. At page 4 of the Respondent's submission, the CPIO admits that the CTE enquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant were initiated prior to his retirement, thereby confirming the existence of censure orders, enquiry reports, and prior disciplinary records. At pages 5 and 6 of 9, the Respondent relies upon the Second Stage Advice of the CVC, recovery of ₹1,40,257/-, the final penalty order dated 25.06.2024, and the appellate rejection letter dated 15.11.2024. While relying upon these very records to defend the disciplinary action, the Respondent has withheld the same from disclosure under the RTI Act. Such selective reliance and non-disclosure attracts adverse inference and conclusively establishes that the denial under Section 8(1)(h) was untenable on the date it was made.
The Respondent's reliance on Section 8(1)(h) * i further misconceived for the reason that the CVO has already recorded that all five officers, including the Appellant, were censured. Once censure is imposed, the enquiry stands concluded and no investigation remains pending. Disclosure of the Disciplinary Authority's approval for censure cannot possibly impede a concluded proceeding. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate any specific impediment and has merely made a bald assertion, which is impermissible in law.Page 5 of 16
The Respondent's attempt to rely on the Second Stage Advice of the CVC is also misplaced. The Appellant did not seek such advice in the RTI application, and in any event, subsequent reliance on such advice in later disciplinary orders cannot retrospectively justify denial of information as on 23.04.2024. Similarly, as on the date of RTI denial, no Appellate Authority order existed, and subsequent appellate decisions cannot be relied upon to justify an earlier denial under the RTI Act. The legality of the denial must be tested strictly with reference to the availability of records under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The present case is squarely covered by the binding decision of the Hon'ble Commission in S.K. Maheshwari vs. CPIO, RBI/BRBNMPL (Decision dated 09.10.2023), wherein it was held that once inspection and enquiry are complete, censure orders are final records and exemptions under Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) do not apply. The impugned denial is therefore contrary to binding precedent.
The FAA order dated 03.06.2024 is also non-speaking, as it does not examine the applicability of exemptions, record reasons, or prescribe any compliance timeline, rendering it defective and contrary to settled RTI jurisprudence. In view of the above, the Appellant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Commission may direct disclosure of the censure order dated 11.12.2019, the enquiry report(s) relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority, proposed penalty, the tentative assessment order dated 27.12.2023, all Board or Appellate Authority approval records, and the Disciplinary Authority's approvals for recovery and withholding of retiral benefits including PLR; hold that the RTI denial dated 23.04.2024 was illegal; and consider appropriate action under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act.Page 6 of 16
It is reiterated that this rejoinder is strictly confined to disclosure of information under the RTI Act, 2005 and does not seek adjudication of any disciplinary or service matter."
During the course of hearing, the appellant while praying for complete disclosure of information, pressed for the documents sought in point nos 1,4 and 9 of the RTI application.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia relied upon their latest written submissions dated , which are taken on record and are reproduced as under:
"...6. It is further submitted that the appellant served as Assistant General Manager in Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Private Limited (hereinafter "BRBNMPL") and retired from the services of the Company on December 31, 2020. Pursuant to a CTE-type inspection conducted by the Chief Vigilance Officer of BRBNMPL in respect of Tender Enquiry No. 127/MYS/CIVIL/2017-18 dated March 07, 2018 relating to Township Maintenance and Facility Management Services at the Mysuru office, certain violations of the Manual Guidelines, Tender Conditions and CVC Guidelines were observed. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant. Upon due consideration of his reply, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) decided to enquire into the lapses and issued a charge sheet vide BNM No. C-181/06.03.01(60467)/2019-20 dated December 16, 2019 (Annexure-3). The enquiry was conducted by an independent Enquiry Officer. Based on the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the DA proposed certain penalties. The proposed penalties were forwarded to CVO BRBNMPL, who thereafter the CVO, BRBNMPL has referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), New Delhi for its advice. The CVC, New Delhi, through its First-Stage Advice, recommended initiation of major penalty proceedings against erring officers, including the appellant. Appellant was informed vide Notice BNM No. C-40/06.03.01(60467)/2021-22 dated June 16, Page 7 of 16 2021 (Annexure-4) that the earlier actions initiated and proceedings conducted by the DA stood withdrawn and that a de novo common enquiry into the lapses/actual loss caused to BRBNMPL would be undertaken.
7. It is pertinent to be submitted that the CTE enquiry and subsequently disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had already been initiated prior to his retirement. The appellant retired on December 31, 2020, and accordingly, Office Order No. 397 dated December 31, 2020 was issued, specifically stating that his superannuation was without prejudice to the rights of the Company to continue the disciplinary proceedings already initiated, in terms of Rule 67.24 of the BRBNMPL Service Rules. The said Office Order further stipulated that the appellant shall cooperate with such proceedings till conclusion and that the release of his non-statutory retirement benefits and non-statutory gratuitous payments shall be contingent upon, and subject to, the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the final orders to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
8. It is submitted that the CVO, BRBNMPL in accordance with the CVC's advice, conducted a fresh enquiry into the matter of Contracts/Tenders of Township Maintenance and Facility Management Services and observed certain alleged lapses while the appellant was posted in the Civil Maintenance Division at Mysuru Office. The appellant was issued fresh letter calling for explanation was issued vide BNM No. C-124/06.03.01(60467)/2021-22 dated August 5, 2021, on the alleged lapses. In response to this, the appellant submitted his explanation vide letter dated August 22, 2021. It was found that the explanation submitted by the appellant in respect of certain major deviations, as pointed out and reported by the CVO, BRBNMPL, having vigilance angle, was not found satisfactory.
9. It is submitted that the Articles of Charge were issued, and the DA issued charge sheet to the appellant vide BNM. C-225/06.03.01(60467)/2022-23 dated September 21, 2022 (Annexure-5). The alleged lapses is stated as under:Page 8 of 16
a) Technical bid evaluation was not carried out as per tender conditions.
b) Error in price-bid evaluation and award of work.
c) Tender conditions were waived after award of contract.
d) Non-verification of qualification and experience criteria stipulated in the Tender/Contract during the period April 2011 to November 2018.
e) Excess payment was made to the contractor on account of deployment of unqualified personnel.
10. It is submitted that an independent Enquiry Officer (EO), Sri V.N.Ravindran, Retired District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru having expertise in legal matters, was appointed to inquire into the charges framed against the appellant and other charged Officers. The EO has concluded the enquiry and submitted his findings and report to the DA. The findings of EO dated August 11, 2023 was forwarded to the appellant vide BNM No. C-155/06.03.01 (Emp. No. 60467) / 2023-24 dated September 04, 2023 for submitting his representation or submission, if any. The appellant has submitted his representation dated September 19, 202 3to the DA. The DA has passed tentative assessment order dated December 27, 2023 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the CVO, BRBNMPL for further necessary actions. The enquiry proceedings and the subsequent actions have been completed as per the model timelines prescribed by the CVC, New Delhi.
11. It is submitted that the CVO, BRBNMPL has forwarded the tentative order of DA to the CVC, New Delhi for its advice. In line with the CVC, New Delhi second stage advice, the DA has passed the tentative orders that the charges nos. 6(c), 6(d) and 6(e) contained in the Charge Sheet BNM No. C-225/ 06.03.01 (60467)/2022-23 dated 21/09/2022 has been established and proved and the same was forwarded to the appellant vide BNM No. C-52 /06.03.01 (60467)/2024-25 dated June 04, 2024, It was also stated in the letter BNM No. C-52 /06.03.01 Page 9 of 16 (60467) (2024-25 dated June 04, 2024 that if the appellant has any representation against the proposed penalty, he may submit in writing.
12. It is submitted that the appellant has submitted his representation dated June 12, 2024. The DA has gone through the representation made and observed that the appellant has not brought any new/relevant point warranting fresh consideration. Therefore, the DA has passed the order dated June 25, 2024, confirming the Major penalty as per the Rule 62.2(a) of BRBNML service rules.
13. It is submitted that, in terms of Rule 71.7 of the BRBNMPL Service Rules, which states that "APPEAL TO BE FORWARDED TO APPELLATE AUTHORITY An appeal which is not withheld by the Competent Authority under Rule 71.4 shall be forwarded to the Appellate Authority with the comments of the Competent Authonty as soon as possible". The appellant submitted an appeal dated July 10, 2024 before the Appellate Authority (AA) against the order of the Disciplinary Authority (DA). The appeal of appellant was placed before the Board of BRBNMPL, being the Appellate Authority. The AA noted the details of charges, EO's findings, DA's observations and orders relating to each charge in the case and upheld the order of DA of major penalty. The same was communicated to the appellant vide BNM No. 1239/06.03.01(60467)/2024-25 dated November 15, 2024.
14. It is further submitted that after imposition of major penalty, an amount of 1,40,257/- was recovered, and the full and final settlement amount of 23,56,984 was credited to the appellant's account on December 06, 2024. The same was communicated to the appellant vide BNM No. 5747 /(5) 01.03.04/2024-25 dated December 12, 2024.
15. It is submitted that the FAA has relied upon the order of the Hon'ble supreme Court dated February 12, 2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1632/2019, between Union of India & Others (Appellant) and Ashok Kumar Page 10 of 16 Sharma (Respondent), which is an appeal ansing from the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2272/2013 dated September 16, 2014 and the High Court of Delhi Division Bench in LPA 471/2015 dated August 17, 2015, wherein information also includes copy of the note sheet for processing the decision to refer the said case to Anti-Corruption Branch of CBI for investigation. In the said case, the said information was denied to the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sharma.
5. The Supreme Court in its order dated February 12, 2019 has held as under:-
"4. The dispute remains about document Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as they were not supplied considering the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits disclosure of information connected with ongoing investigations and prosecutions and it was opined that it was source information that has triggered the anti-corruption proceedings and nothing should be done which affects the proceedings or which compromises the position of the sources of information,
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons employed by the Information Commissioner, we are of the opinion that there was justification in refusing to supply the aforesaid documents. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that during the course of trial, if the trial Court feels it appropriate and if a prayer is made, the documents may be called by Court in accordance with law."
16. It is submitted that the information sought by the appellant regarding the approval of DA to "CENSURE" all Officers from the CPIO would definitely impede the process of investigation and falls under the exemption clause of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. These correspondences pertaining to the appellant and other Officers are part of internal investigation and not necessarily disclosable as these are indeed exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.
17. It is submitted that the appellant has sought information regarding the internal office note duly approved by the competent authority showing reasons of his Page 11 of 16 rejection for the post of consultant required for civil engineering background. The CPIO has informed that the appellant was not found eligible in terms of paragraph 6(A)(vi) of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement dated 08.09.2022. The FAA in its order dated June 03, 2024 has also mentioned that as per 6(A)(vi) of the eligibility criteria The retired officer should not have any disciplinary proceedings pending against her/him in the organization from where she/he retired or in a court of law as on the date of applying".
18. It is submitted that the CPIO had responded to the appellant within stipulated period and sent a point-wise reply based on available records and has provided the desired information in her reply letter dated April 23, 2024. As per Section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is supposed to provide information which is held or under the control of the public authority. He is not supposed to create information to satisfy any assumption/presumption of the appellant.
19. It is submitted that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions under the provisions of the Act. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non- compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the public authority are outside the purview of the Act. Information as available in whatever form in the record can only be provided under the RTI Act.
20. It is submitted that the FAA has clarified the appellant that the redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum. The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) available for resolving such matters.
Page 12 of 1621. It is submitted that the FAA found that the CPIO is very clear and candid in providing the reply to the applicant in his reply letter dated 23/04/2024 addressing the queries raised by the appellant and therefore the contentions of the appellant that the CPIO has provided incorrect, incomplete and misleading information is not correct.
22. Therefore, the grounds raised by the appellant alleging non-disclosure of information are misconceived and untenable. The CPIO has furnished all information that is available on record, and has invoked statutory exemptions only where it is warranted under RTI Act, 2005, Therefore, the allegation of non- disclosure is neither factually nor sustainable. The appellant's contention regarding violation of fair process is also misplaced. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant were conducted strictly in accordance with the BRBNMPL Service Rules and as per the First and Second Stage Advices of CVC, New Delhi. The appellant was issued a charge sheet, afforded opportunities to submit his defence, provided access to the enquiry report, and permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Hence, the allegation of procedural unfairness is devoid of merit. Further, the allegation of financial and mental harassment is factually not correct. As, the withholding of non-statutory retirement benefits was carried out strictly in terms of Office Order No. 397 dated December 31, 2020, which expressly provide that such benefits shall remain contingent upon the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. This cannot be construed as harassment. Such grievance-based assertions fall outside the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and do not give rise to any obligation on the part of the CPIO. The FAA is also in agreement with the decision and reply of the CPIO in compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
23. In view of the foregoing facts, the Appellant is not entitled for the relief sought for by him."
Page 13 of 16When queried by the Commission on the request for enquiry report that has been unanswered in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application, the CPIO stated that the same is not available with them.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has prima facie raised objections against the correctness of findings of the EO as well as the order passed by Disciplinary Authority directing imposition of penalty on him, through his RTI application, specifically, against point no. 1 of the RTI application. Perusal of records reveals that the CPIO has adequately replied to point no. 1 of the RTI application, giving reference to the earlier intimation of the averred order as well as the appellant's acknowledgment to the same. That being so, the merits or the contents mentioned thereof, viz-a-viz the correctness of the proceedings/order referred to in CPIO's reply cannot be adjudicated, within the purview of RTI Act. In that regard, the Commission would like to refer to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023] extracted as under:
"13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings."
However, it is noted that point no. 1 of the RTI application has partly not been addressed, since the copy of report sought thereof has not been provided to the appellant.
Further, the appellant has insisted upon information sought in point no. 4 of the RTI application, and the CPIO has confirmed during the hearing that no copy of intimation, as specified by the appellant, is available with them. In this regard, the appellant's attention is drawn towards the observations passed by Hon'ble High Court of Page 14 of 16 Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], extracted as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
In respect of the appellant's contention with respect to point no. 9 of the RTI application, the Commission observes that the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 25.06.2024 and Appellate Authority's order dated 15.11.2024 having been passed, the proceedings have been concluded. Therefore, the CPIO instead of extracting the operative part of the office note, could have provided a copy of the said note, subject to principles of severability laid down under Section 10 of the RTI Act. In view of the conclusion of averred proceedings, and in the interest of justice, the respondent is directed to re-visit point nos. 1 and 9 of the RTI application and provide certified copies of the documents sought therein, after redacting details exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, free of cost, under due intimation to the Commission.
Further, the response given by the CPIO in respect of the remaining points in the RTI application are found appropriate and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. No interference is called for, to that extent. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 22.12.2025 Page 15 of 16 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, No 3 and 4, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, BTM Layout, Bannerghatta Road, Post Box No. 2924, Bengaluru, Karnataka
- 560029
2. Pradip Kumar Page 16 of 16 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)