Central Information Commission
S K T Sherman vs Office Of The Registrar Cooperative ... on 26 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/RECOS/A/2024/106553
S K T Sherman .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Old Courts Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025
Date of Decision : 18.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 15.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 27.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 11.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to the applicant the total number of complaints received against Astt. Registrar Section-7 of Registrar Cooperative Societies since January 2022 to dated i.e.11/10/2023 through speed post, online and forwarded through other Page 1 of 9 departments including the names of Astt. Registrar Section -7 during that duration.
2) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to the applicant the total number of complaints received against Dy. Registrar/ Dy.
Registrar Arbitration of Registrar Cooperative Societies since January 2022 to dated i.e. 11/10/2023 through speed post, online and forwarded through other departments including the names of Dy. Registrar during that duration.
3) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to applicant certified copies of the Names and Official Designation of the officials under your department who are assigned to deal with Notices u/s 129 of the DCS Act specifically sent by the applicant.
4) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to applicant certified copies of the Names and Official Designation of the officials under your departments who are assigned to deal with Notices 80 of the CPC specifically sent by the applicant.
5) As per Section 2 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to the applicant certified copies of the Name and Official Designation with whom the applicant's complaints w.r.t to Astt. Registrar Section -7 and Dy. Registrar Arbitration was lying during the period along with date wise period with each official and details of action taken by him/her.
6) As per Section 2 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant with a certified copy of the office official email IDs of the officials who are working at Registrar Cooperative Societies, it is pertinent to mention none of the email Id related to Adll. Registrar mentioned on the website of Registrar Cooperative Societies found working
7) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant with a certified copy of the office's (Registrar Cooperative Societies) official communications for government-provided email IDs instead of a Gmail email ID for each official.
8) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide applicant with a certified copy of the department and officials assigned under Registrar Cooperative Societies or any other Agency which is responsible for the maintenance of the website/server and update or uploading of order /Notice/ Circulars on the Registrar Cooperative Societies website.
9) As per Section 2 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant the certified copies of file notings, correspondence and daily progress report of actions taken against my/applicant's complaints made in the last 6 months against Astt. Registrar Section -7.
10) As per Section 2 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of file notings, correspondence and daily progress reports Page 2 of 9 of actions taken against my/applicant's complaints made in the last 6 months against Dy. Registrar Arbitration.
11) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of file notings, correspondence and daily progress report of actions taken against my/applicant's Application for execution of Award dated 12/8/2022 submitted 17/8/2022 in Arbitration Case No. 14/GH/DR/ARB/2020-21
12) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of file notings, correspondence and daily progress reports of actions taken against the Arbitrator's order dated 27/6/2022 for the appointment of Administrator in the concerned society in the Arbitration Case No.14/GH/DR/ARB/2020-21.
13) Kindly provide the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons, and the complete text with complete reference of the specific rules applicable to your public authority why no Administrator is appointed despite the order dated 27/6/2022 Arbitration Case No.14/GH/DR/ARB/2020-21
14) Kindly provide the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons, and the complete text with complete reference to the specific rules applicable to your public authority why no Administrator is appointed despite the Award dated 12/8/2022 Arbitration Case No.14/GH/DR/ARB/2020-21.
15) Kindly provide the applicant with all the reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons, and the complete text with complete reference to the specific rules applicable to your public authority why elections are allowed in the concerned society despite the Award dated 12/8/2022 of the Arbitrator Arbitration Case No. 14/GH/DR/ARB/2020-21
16) Kindly provide the applicant with all the reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons, and the complete text with a complete reference to the specific rules applicable to your public authority Why convicted persons u/s 118 of the DCS Act are allowed to elect in Sri Ram CGHS ltd Plot No. 32 Sector-4, Dwarka, new Delhi- 110078
17) Kindly provide the applicant with all the reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons, and the complete text with complete reference to the specific rules applicable to your public authority why Dy. Registrar (Arbitration) was not transferred from the cases
i) Case Number 110/GH/DR/ARB/2022-23/585-587, titled "S.K.T. SHERMAN VS MANAGING COMMITTEE & Anrs."
Page 3 of 9ii) Case Number 104/GH/DR/ARB/2017-2018/588-589, titled "SRI RAM CGHS Ltd. Vs S.K.T. SHERMAN." Despite repeated applications received by Registrar Cooperative Societies from the applicant.
18) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of file notings, correspondence and daily progress reports of actions taken against the applicant's applications for the transfer of above-mentioned cases.
19) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of file notings, correspondence and daily progress reports of actions taken against my/applicant's complaints regarding illegal/unauthorized surveillance of his flat with video evidence by the convicted (U/S 118 of DCS Act) President, Secretary and other members of the management committee of Sri Ram CGHS Ltd. Plot No.32, Sector- 4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078.
20) Delay is one of the main causes of corruption in India. Please inform me name, and designation of the head of the vigilance department within Registrar Cooperative Societies, his official address, official email ID and official phone/mobile number to whom the complaint can be lodged by me.
21) Kindly provide the applicant with all the reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons, and the complete text with complete reference to the specific rules applicable to your public authority why the applicant's complaints against Dy. Registrar Arbitration and Astt. Registrar Section -7 are not sent to the vigilance department for further investigation."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.11.2023 stating as under:
"1 to 16 & 18 to 21: Does not pertain to Arbitration branch. 17: Questions & Queries are not covered u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 17.08.2025 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
Page 4 of 91.1. The Appellant, a senior citizen aged about 82 years, filed an RTI Application dated 11.10.2023 seeking certified copies of complaints, file notings, action taken reports, and reasons under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act concerning the conduct of the Registrar Cooperative Societies and its officials. 1.2. The PIO, vide reply dated 15.11.2023, rejected the RTI Application in its entirety, arbitrarily and malafidely claiming that the information sought is not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
1.3. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Dy. Registrar, failed to conduct any hearing or issue any order, despite being duty bound under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act. This inaction is aggravated by the fact that the FAA himself was adjudicating authority in related arbitration proceedings, leading to a serious conflict of interest.
2. STATUTORY DUTIES OF THE PIO AND FAA -- AND THEIR TOTAL VIOLATIONS
(a) SECTION 4(1)(A): DUTY TO MAINTAIN RECORDS PROPERLY By denying all information, the PIO effectively admitted to either non maintenance or suppression of records, violating the statutory obligation to maintain records in a retrievable form.
(b) SECTION 4(1)(D): DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONS FOR DECISIONS The Appellant specifically sought reasons for inaction on arbitral awards and non-appointment of an Administrator as these are quasi judicial decisions. These reasons are legally "information" under Section 2(f). By refusing to provide them, the PIO directly violated Section 4(1)(d).
(c) SECTION 5(3): DUTY TO RENDER ASSISTANCE The PIO is legally bound to render reasonable assistance, including collating and supplying information from within the public authority. Rejecting the application in its entirety is a direct violation of this duty.
(c)SECTIONS 5(4) & 5(5): DUTY TO SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER OFFICERS If the information was with another officer or branch, the PIO was duty bound to seek their assistance. The PIO failed to do so, abdicating responsibility.
(d) SECTION 6(3): DUTY TO TRANSFER APPLICATION Where information is held by another section or branch, the PIO must transfer the RTI within 5 days. Instead, the PIO wrongfully retained the application and denied all information, violating Section 6(3).
(f) SECTION 19(6): DUTY OF THE FAA The FAA failed to decide the first appeal within 45 days or issue a speaking order, compounding the illegality. Given that the FAA was himself involved in related arbitration matters, his silence demonstrates bias and conflict of interest.
3. Mala Fides, Bias, and Collusion Page 5 of 9 3.1 The rejection of the RTI in its entirety is not a bona fide interpretation of law but a deliberate attempt to suppress information that would expose corruption and misconduct.
3.2 The PIO and FAA acted in collusion with illegal members of the society's management committee, who were convicted under Section 118 of the DCS Act yet were permitted to continue in office and even contest elections, contrary to arbitral awards and statutory provisions.
3.3 The FAA's inaction is deliberate and designed to shield himself and the PIO from scrutiny, amounting to gross abuse of statutory authority.
4. HARASSMENT AND DENIAL OF RIGHTS The Appellant, a sick senior citizen, has endured harassment and mental agony due to deliberate suppression of information.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC (WP (C) 3114/2007) held:
"The right to information is a cherished right. Delay or denial of information without reasonable cause is denial of the very right itself."
5. Legal Grounds for Relief • Section 7(6): Free Supply of Information -- Information must be provided free of cost as the statutory timeline was breached.
• Section 19(8)(b): Compensation -- The CIC has power to award compensation for harassment and injury caused.
• Section 20(1) & (2): Penalty & Disciplinary Action -- Complete rejection of RTI without lawful cause amounts to malafide denial, attracting maximum penalty. • Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 -- Reasons are mandatory in quasi-judicial decisions.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 -- The RTI Act must be interpreted liberally to further transparency.
6. PRAYER In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
a) Direct the Respondent PIO to provide the complete, correct, and certified information sought in the RTI Application dated 11.10.2023, free of cost within 15 days, as mandated under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act;
b) Impose maximum penalty under Section 20(1) upon the PIO for rejecting the RTI application in its entirety in malafide violation of Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the RTI Act;
c) Recommend disciplinary action under Section 20(2) against both the PIO and FAA for deliberate suppression of information, conflict of interest, and dereliction of statutory duty;
Page 6 of 9d) Award exemplary compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of at least ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the Appellant for harassment, mental trauma, and humiliation suffered due to the illegal denial of information;
e) Direct that adverse entries be made in the service records of the concerned PIO and FAA for willful violation of the RTI Act;
f) In case of non-availability of records, order the PIO to file a notarized affidavit before the Hon'ble Commission, with a copy to the Appellant, certifying the same;
g) Pass such other orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice, transparency, and to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act.
6. A written submission dated 14.08.2025 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"In this connection it is humbly submitted that the undersigned has joined Section 7 very recently on 08.08.2025 in addition to my other portfolios. In this regard, it is humbly submitted the information being sought by the applicant vide his RTI application dated 11.10.2023 and the reply to the RTI on all the 22 points of the RTI was replied with vide this office letter dated 15.11.2023 (copy of noting of letter is enclosed). The questions mostly asked were very vague in nature and thus the applicant was been requested to visit the office on any working day to inspect the file/records or to send any authorized representative on his behalf and get the requisite/desired information in respect of questions raised through the RTI application. However it is also informed that the all the files pertaining to Sri Ram CGHS were examined by Sh Yogesh Sherman(on his behalf) pursuant upon CIC order dated 19.12.2023 on 11/01/2024(Copy enclosed).
The applicant has various issues and cases/applications/appeals w.r.t. Section 105, Section 70 etc of DCS Act 2003 against the Managing Committee of Sri Ram CGHS and vice versa as well as the present issue before the Compete at Authority again and again and also at other relevant platforms. For any such thing, documents or grievances he has the opportunity to avail remedy available with him under relevant provisions of related Act i.e. DCS Act 2003 and DCS Rules 2007, instead of asking for reasons, clarifications etc under RTI. Further in general he has also already inspected the available files lying with Section office on 11.01.2024 by Sh Yogesh Sherman on his behalf(copy enclosed) It is observed and worth mentioning that this appellant is abusing the RTI Act and choking the department with frivolous, vexatious and unnecessary RTI Page 7 of 9 applications as well as so many complaints against all the officers whosoever is connected to his matter even higher authorities.
Also as a member of the society he has the right within provisions of DCS Act 2003 and DCS Rules 2007 to seek information from the society for which the President/Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Society are custodian of records of the society including membership and on elections records (Copy of Rule 39 and Schedule II at S No.22 of DCS Rules 2007(enclosed). In view of above, it is humbly submitted the instant matter may be disposed off as this office always welcomes applicants to visit the office and get the desired information/records whatsoever is available in the office in the capacity of custodian.
An order dated 02.02.2015 in File No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000341 related to this applicant Sh SKT Sherman is very important to be brought into the knowledge of Hon'ble CIC, which is self explanatory and enclosed. Further any other orders of the Hon'ble CIC will be complied with."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Shri Yogesh Sherma present in person. Respondent: Shri Rajeev Chhabra, AR/PIO present in person.
7. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 20.02.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.
8. The Appellant's representative stated that the information has not been provided to him till date. On being queried by the Commission, he answered that the First Appeal has not been adjudicated by the FAA so far. Hence, this Second Appeal filed before the Commission.
9. The respondent at the outset averred that the Appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and representations to their office for which reply and opportunity of inspection of relevant records was afforded to him, however, he never visited their office, and it is only his son who appeared all the time to represent his case. This creates a suspicion in the mind. However, as regards RTI application he stated that point-wise reply has already been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 15.11.2023 by the then PIO.
Page 8 of 9Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the First Appeal of the Appellant has not been adjudicated by the FAA till date.
11. In the given circumstances, the Commission finds it just and reasonable, in accordance with principles of natural justice, that a fair and proper hearing be conducted by the First Appellate Authority, by giving due opportunity to the parties to present their case before the FAA. Hence, the present case is remanded back to the First Appellant Authority for adjudication of the First Appeal on merits as per the provisions of the RTI upon providing fair opportunity to both the parties, provided the Appellant if unable to plead the case on his own and wants to authorized his son to do the needful as usual, he should file an affidavit on non-judicial paper to this effect before the FAA concerned. The First Appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA O/o the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Old Courts Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)