Central Information Commission
V Satya Venkatarao vs Ifci Limited (Ifci) on 5 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620441
CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626870
CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626785
CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620624
V Satya Venkata Rao ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: IFCI Limited (IFCI),
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Sl. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal/ RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
Complaint Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal/
No. Complaint
1. 620441 31.01.2024 20.03.2024 07.03.2024 12.03.2024 15.05.2024
2. 626870 15.02.2024 04.04.2024 04.04.2024 03.05.2024 24.06.2024
3. 626785 01.02.2024 08.03.2024 10.03.2024 09.04.2024 23.06.2024
&
27.05.2024
4. 620624 07.02.2024 21.03.2024 22.03.2024 22.04.2024 16.05.2024
The instant set of appeals and complaints have been clubbed for decision as these
relate to similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 01.05.2025
Date of Decision: 05.05.2025
Page 1 of 14
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620441
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Pl furnish the following information in respect of Shri Krishna Stockists and Traders Ltd to whom a loan was sanctioned by IFCI Ltd during the period 2014 to 2016.
1. The current status of the Account ie whether it is Non performing Account or restructured. The amount provided for in the books as on 31-12-2023.
2. The outstanding dues as on 31-12-2023
3. If the status is a non performing account, pl furnish the following information relating to Litigation initiated Against the company Name of the forum:
Name of the Advocate appearing for IFCI Possession of assets is with:
Current status of the cases in different forum ie DRT, NCLT if any
4. The status of conduct of staff accountability against the officials of IFCI stating whether they are pending or concluded
5. Date of commencement of Staff Accountability exercise and conclusion of the exercise. , etc./ other related information 1.2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2024 directed the CPIO to respond to the RTI application Page 2 of 14 1.3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. In response to your query no.1, it is stated that (a) currently, the account is NPA with IFCI and (b) the account stands technically written-off.
2. In response to your query no.2, it is stated that outstanding dues as on 31-12- 2024 is Rs. 283,51,71,798.53.
3. In response to your query no.3, it is stated as below:
Sl. No. Litigation against the Forum Current Status
Company
1 RC No.536/2019 in OA DRT, In the proceeding before DRT,
117 of 2018, IFCI V/s Hyderabad Counsel for IFCI filed Memo
Sri Krishna Stockists informing that RC schedule
& Traders Pvt. Ltd. property has been attached by
ED and appeal has been filed by
IFCI before AA -PMLA. Matter
Adjourned for outcome of the
Appeal filed by IFCI before AA -
PMLA.
2 Appeal 5750/2023 in Adjudicating Appeal filed by IFCI against the
OC 1806/2022-ED vs Authority - order dt 27/01/2023 in OC
M/s Sri Krishna PMLA 1806/2022-ED vs M/s Sri
Stockist & Private Krishna Stockist & Private
Limited & Others Limited & Others, before the
before the AA-PMLA AA- PMLA- Adjourned to
08/02/2024 for filing of the reply
by the respondent
3 Cases filed by IFCI District Listed for appearance of the
U/s 138 NI Act bearing Courts- accused.
Page 3 of 14
CC 55260/2018, Mayo Hall
CC/53459/2019
The information concerning names of the Advocate is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. In response to your query no.4 to 7, it is stated that the information in respect of various aspects relating to Staff Accountability is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
1.4. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.05.2024.
CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626870
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Copy of the Noting approved by the Competent Authority for carrying out promotions from the Level of Deputy General Manager General Manager, General Manager to Chief General Manager and from Chief General Manager to Executive Director.
2. Copy of the Noting approving the constitution of Interview Committees for the above positions.
3. Copy of the Noting initiated by the Human Resource Department of IFCI seeking vigilance clearance for the Above positions
4. Copy of the Noting of the Vigilance Department giving vigilance clearance in response to item No 3 above.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-Page 4 of 14
"In response to your queries no.1 to 4, it is stated that the information sought is exempted under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, as it relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.05.2024 stated as under: -
"As there is an inconsistency in the exemption quoted by CPIO in his response to the RTI application, the matter is remanded back to CPIO for fresh disposal."
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.06.2024.
CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626785
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Pl specify the competent Authority for withholding pension as per the Delegation of powers in terms of the relevant Rules followed by IFCI
2. The Number of cases in which such power has been exercised from the year April 2018 to December 2023
3. The Designation of the Appellate Authority to whom an appeal can be made against the orders of withholding pension.
4. The Number of such appeals filed from the year April 2018 to December 2023 and the status of the same specifying the numbers disposed and numbers pending.
5. Copies of Noting recorded for payment of LIC Group Superannuation cash accumulation scheme at the Level of Executive Director and above from the period April 2018 to 2023. The Names of the Officials in the noting sheets and other personal information may pl be masked Page 5 of 14 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. In response to your query no.1, it is stated that for below Board level officials, the powers for imposition of various penalties in terms of IFCI Staff Regulations, 1974 (amended from time to time) are with defined Disciplinary Authorities as per Delegation of Powers (available on IFCI website www.ifciltd.com). In view of the same, no specific Competent Authority could be specified for the purpose mentioned in the query.
2. In response to your query no.2, 3 & 4, it is stated that in view of our response to query no.1, no response becomes applicable for these queries.
3. In response to your query no.5, it is stated that while contribution towards LIC Group Superannuation cash accumulation scheme is advised and transferred on monthly basis, no notings are recorded.
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.04.2024 directed the CPIO to re-
examine and to provide the information to the RTI applicant.
3.3. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under: -
1. In response to your query no.1, it is further added that various penalties are defined in regulation 61 of IFCI staff regulations, 1974 (available on IFCI website www.ifciltd.com). Withholding of Pension is not a defined penalty under the regulations.
2. In response to your query no.2, 3 & 4, it is stated that in view of our response to query no.1, no response becomes applicable for these queries.
3. In response to your query no.5, it is stated that the noting pertaining to such payments consists of name of officials and other personal information. The Page 6 of 14 information being sought here is personal in nature and therefore exempt as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3.4. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.06.2024.
CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620624 4.1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation somewhere in 2017 or 2018 has advised IFCI to issue suitable Caution/warning/advisory to the officers who dealt with the case of sanction and disbursement of Loan to shri Krishna Stockists and Traders Pvtd. A copy of the said communication received from CBI May pl be furnished.
2. Pl furnish the copies of the noting sheets processed in IFCI in this regard pursuant to the above letter.
3. Pl furnish a copy of the advice/warning/caution issued to Shri V. Satya Venkatarao Ex Executive Director Pursuant to the above letter received from CBI.
4. Pl specify the number of officers whose names appears in the above said letter.
5.Pl furnish a copy of the noting sheet put up to the competent authority for issuing the caution/advisory/warning to the above named officers (names of the officers and the person details may be redacted) 4.2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. In response to your query no. 1 & 4, it is stated that the requested document belongs to CBI. CBI advised IFCI to treat the document as confidential and it Page 7 of 14 shall not be shared as it is exempted under RTI Act, 2005, vide notification No. F. No. 1/3/2011 - IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India.
2. In response to your query no. 2 & 5, it is stated that the notings processed contain opinion and recommendation for deliberative purposes on confidential investigatory inputs received from CBI which is a third party exempted under RTI Act and contains opinion and recommendations in respect of other persons besides the applicant, which are confidential and personal in nature and disclosure of the same may harm personal privacy of other persons. IFCI has notified such information as exempted under Section 8 of RTI Act on its website.
3. In response to your query no. 3, it is stated that information is not available with IFCI.
4.3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2024 stated as under:-
(i) Regarding query no. 1, the matter is remanded back to CPIO for deciding the said query in light of the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act. Since query no.
2, 4 and 5 are interconnected with query no. 1, the same are also remanded back to CPIO for fresh disposal within 15 days of receipt of this order.
(ii) In regard to query no. 3 of the RTI Application, CPIO has categorically informed that no document is available with IFCI. Therefore, no intervention by the undersigned is warranted.
4.4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.05.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Varinder Malik, AGM; Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Consultant; Kanwaljit Singh (MCL) attended the hearing in-person.
Page 8 of 146. The appellant prima facie raised objections to the written submissions given by the respondent and contended that he had not sought redressal of his personal grievances. He inter alia submitted that he had not filed any duplicate or repetitive Applications concerning similar subject-matter and all his issues raised in RTI applications were with the sole purpose of getting information. In most cases, the respondent did not furnish the requisite information within the stipulated time limit. He insisted that even the second response given by the CPIO was not given timely, in compliance of the FAA's order and in some cases, there was no compliance.
6.1. In CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626870, the appellant argued that the promotion process was carried out without following due procedure. Moreover, several delinquent officials, despite having been issued chargesheets by CBI had been considered for the promotion process. In larger public interest, he wanted the complete Committee proceedings to be made available in public domain.
6.2. In CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626785, the appellant contended that the respondent had not clearly indicated the rules/regulations constituting Delegation of powers in terms of the relevant Rules followed by IFCI. Therefore, the reply given by the CPIO in compliance of the FAA's order was not satisfactory.
6.3. In CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620624, the appellant stated that the investigation process was ongoing since a period of over 8 years and he had not received the requisite information, so far. Also, late response has been received from the CPIO in compliance to FAA order. Further, the respondent had not claimed appropriate exemption clause earlier and invoked the same in their latest written submissions.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that endorsed the reply given by the CPIO on 10.05.2024 in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620441.
7.1. The representative of CPIO in response to appellant's submissions regarding involvement of larger public interest in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626870, inter alia relied upon Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, extracted as under:
"44. Amendments to certain Acts:Page 9 of 14
(3) In section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in sub-section (1), for clause
(j), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:--"(j) information which relates to personal information;".
He further stated that the aforementioned provision has effectively removed the proviso to the exemption clause (j) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act and the enactment (DPDP Act) having been brought to effect, the plea for disclosure of information on the ground of involvement of public interest, is no longer sustainable.
7.2. The CPIO stated that the queries in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626785 had been sufficiently addressed, since they had provided the weblink containing relevant rules referred to in the RTI application. Besides, the remaining information was not maintained in the manner sought by the appellant.
7.2. The CPIO confirmed and reiterated their stand that the information sought in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620624 was exempted under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, since the investigation conducted by CBI had not been concluded.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620441. It is noted that the appellant has pleaded grounds of delayed response in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620441. The CPIO gave a revised response on 10.05.2024, in compliance with the FAA's order dated 12.03.2024, after a lapse of two months. Moreover, perusal of the RTI queries reveal that the appellant sought specific and disclosable information in point nos 4 to 7 of the RTI application which is not exempted under the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide revised information in respect of point nos 4 to 7 of the RTI application to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620441 is disposed of.
8.1. The Commission notes in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626870 that the appellant has failed to demonstrate larger public interest warranting disclosure of information relating to third-parties and by merely claiming that the subject-matter concerns public interest, the Page 10 of 14 right to privacy guaranteed to individuals cannot be waived off. Besides, the appellant's attention is drawn towards interpretation of 'public interest' to be viewed in light of the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012], extracted as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)].
"24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor Page 11 of 14 between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India."
The Commission advises the representative of CPIO to desist from making submissions that are not tenable. The DPDP Act is yet to become effective pending subordinate legislation since DPDP Rules are under consideration for public consultation. In absence of any notification of Central Government in this regard, the representative of CPIO may not rely on these provisions. Further, it is also noted in the CPIO's reply dated 04.04.2024, the CPIO had incorrectly mentioned Section 8 (1) (h) while pleading that the information pertained to personal information of third-parties. The same has been rectified in their latest written submissions by present CPIO wherein it has been pleaded that information is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent is cautioned to avoid making such errors in future. The Commission finds no scope of relief in terms of merits of the case in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626870.
8.2. In CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626785, the Commission notes that the appellant did not specifically seek the copy of the averred rules, however, the respondent duly provided the weblink containing the relevant rules. Moreover, the details of competent authority are exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) and (g) of the RTI Act. That being so, and the remaining queries not being maintained in material form, the Commission finds no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO. Accordingly, no direction in terms of disclosure of information is called for in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/626785. 8.3. In CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620624, the Commission notes that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO. Moreover, the Commission cannot look into the reasons for pendency of investigation at the end of CPIO and the proceedings not having concluded, the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, is found reasonable. Accordingly, no relief in disclosure of information is warranted in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/62062.
Page 12 of 148.4. The Commission notes that replies given in all four appeals were given beyond the prescribed time limit laid down under the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the respondent (Chirag Sapra, earlier CPIO) is directed to submit explanations for causing delay in responding to the RTI applications within stipulated time limit as well as delay in complying with the FAA's order (in CIC/IFCIL/A/2024/620441). The present CPIO is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon the then CPIO and to submit his written explanations to the Commission through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The Commission also takes note of the objections raised by the appellant regarding the CPIO's claim that he had sought redressal of his grievance under the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission cautions the respondent to restrict their submissions to the merits and issues of the cases and avoid referring to the background of applicant(s) unless specifically queried by the Commission, in cases wherein such facts are found crucial for adjudication of the cases.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 05.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 13 of 14 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO IFCI Limited, Head Office, IFCI Tower, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110 019 2 V Satya Venkatarao Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)