Central Information Commission
Vikas Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 30 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDATY/A/2024/639630
Vikas Singh ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO
Assistant Director (PB-I)
Delhi Development Authority,
B-316, B Block, 3rd Floor,
Vikas Sadan, INA,
New Delhi-110023
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2026
Date of Decision : 30.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from second appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.02.2024, 27.02.2024 and 19.03.2026
First appeal filed on : 15.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's : 22.07.2024
order
Second Appeal dated : 05.09.2024
Page 1 of 9
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"I Vikas Singh S / O Kusum Singh R/ O A-12, Gali no 4 Bihari colony Shahdara , Delhi - 110032 wish to seek information, under the RTI Act , 2005 as my father in law RP Jayant or Rajinder Prasad S/O Kabool Singh retired from DDA but he is still working as an Consultant for past 3 years and have been using its name and power for influencing the department but declared in undersigned affidavit that he is retired. He is under allegations in two cases in Karkardoom Court that is Case No. 2180/2022 And Case No. 24/2023 which includes violence, abuse, threatening and trespassing. He also using fabricated documents and Multiple Fake identities while working in DDA as well which is not just illegal but also intentionally hiding the true identification from the government. That is, Rajendra Prasad @ R P Jayant @Rajender Prasad @Rajinder Prasad @Rajendra Prasad Jayant - Tehsildar (Retd.) DDA : Mob- 9212643978 and email - [email protected] Old Address ( DDA Alloted Flat ) : C-77, DDA Flats , Old Rajinder Nagar , New Delhi - 60 Present Address : Rakesh Niwas, Khasra No.24/15 OPP. SANSKRITI APPARTMENTS SHAHBAD EXTENTION - 2, ROHINI SECTOR 28 NEW DELHI - 110042 Please provide information in respect to following under RTI Act 2005 :
1) Since he was a public servant I am seeking his true name by which he was appointed as Tehsildar and did his service because he is using multiple name even in DDA website and records.
2) He was working by the name Rajinder Prasad Tehsildar (Retd.) A/C to "Seniority list of Tehsildar" & "Offline Internal Training Calendar 2021-2022 and 2023-2024" BUT "Retirement List" and "Meeting List" published by DDA Official website says Rajendra Prasad so which name is correct as both are published by DDA Only.
3) Does he changed the name after retirement from Rajinder Prasad to Rajendra Prasad to be appointed as Consultant - LP or he using both names as stated in DDA notices.Page 2 of 9
4) His Aadhaar card says name "R P Jayant" and Pan card says "Rajendra Prasad" so which identification card he used during his service time.
5) Which name is in the DDA records for TDS and taxation purpose.
6) His name in Pan card ALOPP0614L is Rajendra Prasad and in Aadhaar card 754724526942 is R P Jayant so for paying TDS and Income tax , which name he was using for the purpose.
7) Does the DDA records have both PAN & aadhaar card with different name or same names
8) He attacked me on 17 th Jan, 2023 at my resident with other DDA officials which was captured in CCTV footage, so was he on leave that day or working full day".
2. The CPIO, Assistant Director (LM) transferred the RTI application to Assistant Director (PB-I) on 14.11.2023.
The CPIO, Assistant Director PB-IV transferred the RTI application to Assistant Director PB-I on 16.11.2023 The CPIO, Assistant Director PB-I transferred the RTI application to Assistant Director (Pension) on 12.02.2024. However, the CPIO, PB-I replied as under:
"The para wise information is as under: Para 1,2,3 - Incomplete details víz. Correct Name, UID No., Date of joining/Retirement etc. not provided. RTI Act 2005 does not require the PIO to interpret information or provide clarification of the queries. Further, the information sought regarding 3rd party are denied under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Para 4,5,6,7,8- The information sought seems more closely pertaining to the Pension Branch. Hence, the RTI has already been forwarded to the Pension branch for said paras. The delay in reply is deeply regretted."
Further, the CPIO, PB-I furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.02.2024 stating as under:
"No person with the name as mentioned in the RTI is dealt in PB-, therefore the information cannot be provided. Your RTI application is forwarded to multiple CPIOs"
Details of the CPIO and FAA is not found mentioned in the above reply.
Page 3 of 9On dated 19.03.2026 the respondent CPIO, (Pension) replied as under:-
"Kindly refer to the above mentioned RTI No. DDATY/R/E/23/03097/1 dated 06.11.2023. In this regard, as per record of Pension Branch, the PAN Card No. ALOPP0614L (as mentioned on RTI Application) stands in the name of Shri Rajendra Prasad. Further to inform you that Shri Rajendra Prasad is the retired employee of DDA and his pension is being sent to the respective bank. Pension branch of DDA does not deduct or process TDS on monthly pension. The respective bank of the pensioner is responsible for TDS deduction."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 15.12.2023. On 15.12.2023 Nodal Officer, RTI, DDA transferred the first appeal to the concerned FAA.
On 19.12.2023 first appeal transferred to FAA, Dy. Director, LM, Shahdra.
On 11.01.2024 first appeal was transferred to FAA, Dy. Director (LMC).
On 12.01.2024, first appeal was transferred to FAA, Dy. Director, PB-IV.
On 15.07.2024 first appeal was transferred to FAA, Dy. Director, P-I. On dated 22.07.2024 FAA, Dy. Director, PB-I stated as under:
"The PIO has already furnished the reply to RTI application. Further, on perusal of RTI application, it has been observed that information being sought is personnel in nature and that too third- party information which is restricted under section 8(1)(J) and section 11 of RTI Act 2005. Further, disclosure of such information does not serve any larger public interest and hence sought information cannot be given under 8(1)(J) and section 11of RTI Act 2005. In view of above, the appeal is disposed off.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -Page 4 of 9
Appellant: Mr. Vikas Respondent: Ms. Kamini, AD/Pension, CPIO, DDA Ms. Dheeraj, AD, CPIO, PB-I, DDA
5. Proof of having served the copy of second appeal to the respondent while filing the same in the Commission is not on record.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that no reply was furnished within the stipulated period of 30 days as mandated under the RTI Act, 2005. It was further contended that the First Appellate Authority passed the order after an inordinate delay of 221 days. The Appellant also argued that the initial reply of the CPIO was misleading and factually incorrect, as it denied the existence of the concerned individual despite the Appellant having provided sufficient details and supporting documents. Subsequently, the respondent changed its stand and admitted that the individual in question, namely Shri Rajendra Prasad, was indeed a retired employee of DDA. He prayed for imposition of penalty on the CPIOs for furnishing a reply after almost 27 months.
7. Written submissions dated Nil filed by the appellant is taken on record which states that CPIO initially denied the existence of person, whereas FAA later claimed that information is a third-party information under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is also stated that FAA failed to apply mind and mechanically upheld the CPIO reply. It is also stated that information sought is a public information as it relates to a public servant. Further, it is also alleged that the said public servant is using multiple names and multiple identities in government service records. It is also stated that the sought information is not private as it relates to public employment records, Government Payments (TDS) and authentic identity of a public servant. It is also stated that information cannot be denied under section 11 of the Act as it is only procedural in nature and in present case without asking consent of the said individual section 11 is invoked by the FAA.
8. The respondent CPIO, PB-I while defending their case inter alia submitted that at the time of retirement, the concerned individual was recorded in official records under the name "Rajendra Prasad." It was further submitted that certain information, such as leave details of the individual, is personal in nature and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA, PB-I, DDA vide order dated 22.07.2024 upheld the reply the CPIO. The respondent CPIO, PB-I tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in furnishing the reply on the part of the then CPIO namely Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.D., CPIO.
Page 5 of 99. Written submissions dated 20.03.2026 filed by the FAA, PB-I, DDA is taken on record wherein it is stated that relevant paras of RTI application was received in their office on 16.11.2023 and duly replied on 12.02.2024. Further the First Appeal was disposed of on 22.07.2024. It is also stated that as per the retirement notification Sh. Rajender Prasad was working as a Tehsildar, retired from service on 31.12.2018. Copy of written submissions is found endorsed to the appellant.
Decision:
10.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions, notes that the appellant had filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2023 seeking information regarding the identity and official particulars of one Shri Rajendra Prasad (also referred to as R.P. Jayant / Rajinder Prasad), a retired Tehsildar of DDA, allegedly using multiple names and identities during and after service. The Commission further notes with serious concern that the then CPIO, PB-I in the reply dated 12.02.2024 denied the information on the ground that incomplete details were provided in para 1,2,3 of the RTI application and the sought information is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, CPIO, PB-I in reply dated 27.02.2024, denied the existence of the concerned individual.
The Commission also notes that in the reply dated 19.03.2026, the respondent CPIO, Pension has admitted that Shri Rajendra Prasad is a retired employee of DDA. The Commission further notes that FAA, PB-I in written submissions dated 20.03.2026 also mentioned that Sh. Rajender Prasad was working as a Tehsildar, retired from service on 31.12.2018. Therefore, the Commission observes that there is contradiction in the replies dated 12.02.2024, 27.02.2024 given by then CPIO, PB-I and FAA, PB-I reply dated 22.07.2024.
The Commission further observes that the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the RTI Act by the FAA, PB-I was not correctly applied. The Commission is of the view that section 11 is only a procedural safeguard and cannot be used as a ground for denial of information, when no third-party consultation appears to had been undertaken.
With regard to exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the Commission is of the considered opinion that information relating to the Page 6 of 9 name under which a public servant was appointed, served, and retired, as well as identity used in official records, cannot be treated as purely personal information. Such information has a direct bearing on public activity and accountability, especially when allegations of multiple identities have been raised by the appellant. However, the Commission agrees that certain aspects such as leave records may fall within the ambit of personal information, unless larger public interest is clearly established.
The Commission also notes that the then CPIO, PB-I, Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.D., in reply dated 12.02.2024 and 27.02.2024, not only provided incorrect and contradictory reply but also did not mention the details of CPIO and details of FAA, which was required as per the DoPT instructions issued vide Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR. The Commission also notes that the respondent CPIO, Pension had given a reply on 19.03.2026 i.e., after filing of the second appeal.
In view of the above, the then CPIO, PB-I, Mr. Akshay Kumar and respondent CPIO, Pension, DDA is Show Caused as to why action under section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated against them for the above-mentioned lapses. Written explanations of the then CPIO, PB-I, Mr. Akshay Kumar and respondent CPIO, Pension, DDA shall be submitted before the Commission within 21 days of the date of receipt of this order, along with comments of FAA.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is directed to be re-listed.
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 30.03.2026 Page 7 of 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. Then CPIO Mr. Akshay Kumar Assistant Director (PB-1), Delhi Development Authority, B-316, B Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
2. The CPIO Assistant Director (PB-1), Delhi Development Authority, B-316, B Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023
3.The CPIO Assistant Director/ Pension Cell Delhi Development Authority, C-2/115, Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi-110023
4. FAA, RTI Dy. Director/ Pension Cell Delhi Development Authority, C-2/115, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi-110023 Page 8 of 9
5.Mr. Vikas Singh Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)