Central Information Commission
Salim Babu P K vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 20 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214
Salim Babu P K ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
O/o. DGM MTNCE BHARAT
SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,
MICROWAVE STATION BLDG.,
DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR,
ERNAKULAM 682017 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.03.2026
Date of Decision : 19.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.11.2024
CPIO replied on : 18.12.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Complaint dated : 02.01.2025
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"In the RTI Reply under ref1 it has categorically mentioned against SI No.2 that BSNL Alappuzha Authorities had not made any false/ misleading CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214 Page 1 of 7 information before the Hon, ble Central Information Commission. As such the communication from Alappuzha SSA dtd 3/3/22 is in order and lawful In this context the information seeker would like to know the following information
1. The specific reason for not releasing the title deed of the information seeker along with encumbrance clearance certificate
2.An attested copy of Rule 19(11) of HBA as mentioned against Sl No.4 of ref 1"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.12.2024 stating as under:
"1. The original HBA documents are not released as this office has not received any information of the compliance of the instructions contained in the letter CGM-CNTXS/TA/HBA/2/PKS/2022-2023/49 dtd 09.08.2023 (copy enclosed).
2. To give the reply to this question, either the reference number of the letter or copy of the letter is required. So, it may be provided.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Smt. Bindu, CPIO-cum-DGM, attended the hearing through VC.
4. The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
5. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 18.12.2024. with respect to point No. 1 of the RTI Application, she apprised the Bench that shortage of HBA interest of Rs. 32,813/- has to be recovered from the Complainant due to which the original title deed was not released. With respect to point No. 2 of the RIT Application, copy of relevant rule has been provided to the Complainant.
6. A written submission has been received from CPIO-cum-DGM, vide letter dated 11.03.2026, stating as under:CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214 Page 2 of 7
"1. Background of the Case The appellant, Sri. Salim Babu P K, filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2024 seeking certain information relating to House Building Advance (HBA).
The RTI application was originally addressed to the Office of the CGM, CN- TX, Chennai, under whose administrative control this office functions. Accordingly, the matter was forwarded to this office for providing the required information.
This office, being the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) for the concerned jurisdiction, examined the request and furnished a reply in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Reply Furnished by this Office The RTI application was replied to vide letter:
No. CNTSEK-11/11/4/2023-ADMN-TECH CNTX-S-ENK/59 dated 18.12.2024 The point-wise reply was furnished as follows:
Query No.1 Query:
Specific reason for not releasing the title deed of the applicant along with the Encumbrance Clearance Certificate.
Reply:
The original HBA documents were not released since this office had not received confirmation regarding compliance of the instructions contained in letter No. CGM-CNTX/STA/HBA2/PKS/2022-2023/49 dated 09.08.2023. A copy of the said letter was enclosed with the RTI reply.
Query No.2 Query:
Attested copy of Rule 19(II) of the HBA Rules as mentioned against Sl. No. 4 of Reference No.1.
Reply:
For providing the specific rule as referred in the query, the reference number or copy of the letter in which the rule was cited was requested from the applicant, since the exact context of the rule mentioned in the reference could not be identified without the relevant document.
3. Clarification Regarding Query No.2 It is respectfully submitted that the reply was given in good faith. in order to provide the exact rule referred to in the specific context mentioned by the applicant, this office requested the applicant to furnish either:
the reference number of the letter, or CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214 Page 3 of 7 a copy of the letter in which the rule was cited Without the above details, it was difficult to precisely identify the rule referred to by the applicant However, for the convenience of the Hon'ble Commission and the applicant, the relevant extract of Rule 19(II) of the House Building Advance Rules is now enclosed herewith, even though the said rules are already available in the public domain.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that no false or misleading information was provided by the CPIO.
4. Availability of First Appellate Remedy in the RTI reply dated 18.12.2024, the applicant was clearly informed about the availability of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The reply specifically mentioned that:
"Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of this reply."
The details of the First Appellate Authority were also provided in the reply. However, the applicant did not prefer a first appeal before the designated FAA, and instead approached the Hon'ble Central Information Commission directly.
While this office fully respects the applicant's right to approach the Hon'ble Commission, it is submitted that the issue could have been resolved at the First Appellate Authority level itself, particularly regarding clarification of the second query.
5. Lack of response from the applicant The applicant did not respond to the request from this office to submit the letter referred by him. If it was provided, this office would have replied to him suitably so that no case of even appeal would have arisen.
6. Reply to the Reliefs Sought by the Applicant The applicant has sought the following reliefs before the Hon'ble Commission.
(i) Direction to provide correct and complete information under Section 19(8)(a)(i) # is respectfully submitted that The reply to Query No.1 was provided correctly based on available records.
No false or misleading information was furnished. Regarding Query No.2, No false and misleading information was given. As mentioned above, further information was sought from the applicant on CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214 Page 4 of 7 good spirit. However, the copy of the rule is provided along with this, even though it is available in the public domain.
(ii) & (iii) Imposition of penalty on the CPIO It is respectfully submitted that:
The RTI application was replied within the prescribed time limit under the RTI Act The reply was provided based on available records and in good faith. No information was deliberately withheld. Hence, no lapse on the part of the CPIO has occurred, and therefore the question of penalty does not arise.
7. Submission of the CPIO This office respectfully submits that:
The RTI application was processed in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The reply was furnished within the stipulated time frame. The response was provided based on available records and administrative position.
Additional clarification was sought only to ensure accuracy and completeness of the information.
This office remains fully committed to transparency and compliance with the RTI Act, 2005.
8. Documents Enclosed The following documents are enclosed for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Commission:
1. Copy of CPIO reply dated 18.12.2024
2. Copy of letter CGM-CNTX/STA/HBAZ/PKS/2022-2023/49 dated
09.08.2023
3. Extract of Rule 19(ii) of House Building Advance Rules (Annexure-A)
4. Copy of CIC Notice dated 20.02.2026
9. Prayer In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly:
Take on record this written submission and the enclosed documents Appreciate the bona fide actions taken by this office in processing the RTI application Note that the relevant HBA rule has been furnished now. Pass such orders as deemed fit and appropriate.CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214 Page 5 of 7
The undersigned CPIO shall attend the hearing scheduled on 19.03.2026 at 10:50 AM before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner with all relevant records.
In case of unavoidable circumstances, an officer not below the rank of CPIO and fully conversant with the case shall attend the hearing. This office shall remain available for any further clarification required by the Hon'ble Commission."
Decision
7. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214 Page 6 of 7
8. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
9. Be that as it may, the written submission sent by the Respondent vide letter dated 11.03.2026, is more elaborate and is treated as updated reply but a copy of the same has not been sent to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the same along with relevant annexures to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order. No further action is required in the instant matter.
The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/BSNLD/C/2025/100214 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)