CIC: Provide a due opportunity of being heard to the parties while adjudicating the First Appeal; Serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is a fundamental requirement for due process

Information of election in Sri Ram CGHS Itd. -

CIC: An advisory u/s 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority to provide a due opportunity of being heard to the parties while adjudicating the First Appeal in view of principle of natural justice

CIC: FAA’s directions were not complied with by the PIO till the date of hearing; Respondent PIO apologized for the mistake and assured that no such incident would recur in future; PIO cautioned to be careful in future

CIC: The Complainant has not served a copy of the instant Complaint upon the Respondent; Serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority

Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 02.02.2023 seeking the following information:

“1) 1, S.K.T. Sherman, Citizen of India, resident of Flat No. B-54, Sri Ram C.G.H.S. Ltd., Plot No.32, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi 110078, would like to request you for the following information under RTI Act 2005. I have enclosed a prescribed fee of Rs.10/- Vide Postal Order No. 51F 897195 dated 18/07/21 as per Rules.

II) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copy of the Order No. F.47/908/Sec-VII/RCS dated 03/10/2022 issued to Returning officer appointed by Astt. Registrar Section 7, Sh. Tej Pal Singh to conduct of election in Sri Ram CGHS Itd. Plot No.32, Sec-4, Dwarka New Delhi-110078 Reg.908.

III) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of complete (a) membership list & (b) defaulter list supplied by the Returning officer appointed by RCS Sh. Tej Pal Singh or society, Sri Ram C.G.H.S. Ltd. Plot No.32, Sector-4, Dwarka, New, Delhi110078 (Regn. No. 908 GH) for the conduct of an election in the society for the year 2022.

IV) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of Proposer and Seconder for the nomination of the candidates supplied by the Returning officer Sh. Tej Pal Singh for the election held on 29/01/2023.

V) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copy of Election Report filed by the returning officer appointed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies after conducting the election on 29/01/2023 in Sri Ram C.G.H.S. Itd. Plot No.32, Sector-4, Dwarka, New, Delhi-110078 (Regn. No. 908 GH).

VI) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide the applicant certified copies of file notings, daily correspondence and daily progress report of actions taken against applicant's complaints dated 07/10/2022, 09/11/2022,1 6/01/2023 and 19/01/2023 concerning illegal election and corrupt returning officer, Sh. Tej Pal Singh appointed by the Registrar cooperative societies.

VII) As per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005, kindly provide to the applicant certified copy of relevant sections of DCS Act and DCS Rules applicable to your public authority which validates audit reports for year 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 submitted by the management committee of Sri Ram CGHS Ltd. Plot No. 32, Sector-4, Dwarka New Delhi-110078 when the whole election and management committee has been declared illegal by Ld. Arbitrator Sh. G.K. Marwah vide his Award dated 18/3/2021 and the next management committee was also declared illegal by Award of Sh. Shailesh Gupta dated 12/08/2022.

VIII) Kindly provide to 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 specific rules applicable to your public authority as per which Audit Department didn't initiate actions/issued notices or rejected the audit reports submitted by the illegal management committee of Sri Ram CGHS Itd. Plot No.32 Sector-4, Dwarka New Delhi110078 (Reg.908)

IX) Kindly provide to the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1) (d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons/grounds, and the complete text (with complete reference) of the specific rules applicable to your public authority under which election held on 29/01/2023 has been considered valid even though most of the members contested were convicted u/s 118 of DCS Act as per the Award dated 12/8/2022 of Ld. Arbitrator Sh. Shailesh Gupta and has been reported to Astt. Registrar Section -7 in timely manner.

X) Kindly provide to the applicant all the reasons u/s 4(1) (d) of the RTI Act, certified copies of all records of the reasons/grounds, and the complete text (with complete reference) of the specific rules applicable to your public authority under which no action has been initiated to declare the election conducted on 29/01/2023 in the above-mentioned society null and void/illegal even though it was reported by the applicant quite ahead of the election which was held on 29/01/2023.”

2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.04.2023, held as under.

“The appeal dated 13/03/2023 is disposed of as under:-

The PIO/AR (Sec-7) is directed to provide requisite information in terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant within 07 days of receipt of this order. Also, if the applicant desires, he may be allowed to visit the office of the PIO to inspect the available records relating to his application to get the copies of required information as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

4. A written submission dated 17.08.2025 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

“1. BRIEF FACTS

a. That in the connected matter CIC/RECOS/A/2023/127486, this Hon’ble Commission, vide order dated 26.10.2023, directed the PIO/Assistant Registrar, Section-VII, Smt. Suman Kumari, to provide complete information sought by the complainant.

b. Instead of complying, the PIO vide letter No. 47/ARCS/SEC VII/2023/631-32 dated 31.10.2023 ANNEXURE B-1 issued a vague and malafide reply, denying information on wholly untenable grounds, namely, “voluminous information” and “format not sought electronically” — reasons not recognized under the RTI Act.

2. NON-COMPLIANCE & FABRICATION OF RECORDS

Aggrieved, the complainant filed a Non-Compliance Petition dated 05.11.2023 (ANNEXURE B-2). Later, by reply dated 02.05.2024 (No.F.47/CIC/SEC-VII/Coop/2023/289-90), the PIO furnished only two certified copies —

(i) an Election order dated 03.10.2022, and

(ii) a List of Nominations dated 19.01.2023. Upon scrutiny, it became evident that the 03.10.2022 order was fabricated, as:

a. Annexure A-1 of the submitted complaint (copy received from PIO) contained overwriting by hand of the name of Sh. Huckam Chand, replaced with Sh. Som Dutt Sharma.

b. Annexure A-2 of the submitted complaint (true certified copy received from Dy. Registrar’s office) bore no such overwriting and was an unaltered version of the same order.

c. Annexure A-3 of the submitted complaint (office order dated 15.11.2022) proves that Sh. Som Dutt Sharma was not posted in Section-VII on 03.10.2022, thereby exposing the falsification. This establishes that the PIO not only failed to comply with CIC’s order but also fabricated official records to protect the convicted u/s 118 of the DCS Act 2003 , members of the illegal management committee of Sri Ram CGHS Ltd., Plot No. 32, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078 who cant even contest the election as per DCS Act. That the foregoing compelled the appellant to file the present complaint, even though—vide his letter dated 07.05.2024 (ANNEXURE B-3)—the appellant/complainant had already apprised Deputy Registrar, Shri Sharad Kumar (Compliance Cell) of the fabricated document supplied to him. Despite being put to notice and made well aware of the fabrication, no corrective steps were taken, no speaking order was issued, and the continuing noncompliance persisted unabated. This strengthens the inference of malafides, deliberate suppression, and collusion, aggravating the violation of the CIC’s order dated 26.10.2023 and inviting action under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. & 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act along with appropriate disciplinary and penal consequences.

3. QUESTIONS ARISING FROM FABRICATION (FROM COMPLAINT)

The following critical questions arise from the manipulation of records:

i. Why did the PIO delay release of the 03.10.2022 order despite CIC’s directions?

ii. Why did the PIO hand-correct/overwrite official orders instead of issuing fresh ones?

iii. iv. Why is there no overwriting in the society’s copy of the same order? How did Sh. Som Dutt Sharma sign orders for Section-VII when he was not posted there till 15.11.2022?

v. Were these orders deliberately fabricated post-elections to shield the convicted management committee?

vi. Why were illegal elections allowed based on falsified records despite members being convicted u/s 118 of the DCS Act? vii. Why was an Administrator not appointed despite multiple awards against the management committee, enabling misuse of over _ & UR UH RI society funds?

4. PATTERN OF CORRUPTION AND MALAFIDE CONDUCT

It is respectfully submitted that the PIO has become a habitual offender, consistently:

I. II. III. Denying access to critical records (membership list, defaulter list and even the rules which allowed convicted member can contest for election) to conceal corruption; Fabricating documents to shield tainted officials and society’s illegal members of the management committee. Disobeying CIC’s orders despite repeated warnings and even issuance of Show cause Notice of maximum penalty in CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/146586 (11.06.2024) and affidavit directions in CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/123023 (19.12.2023).

5. LEGAL POSITION

x x x x x x Section 7(1), RTI Act: mandates timely information; denial on extraneous grounds is illegal. Section 4(1)(d), RTI Act: requires reasons for administrative decisions — blatantly ignored. Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. & (2), RTI Act: provides for maximum penalty and recommendation for disciplinary action for repeated non-compliance. Delhi HC in Mujibur Rehman v. CIC (W.P.(C) 3845/2007, 28.04.2009) held that repeated violations attract penalty to ensure compliance.

Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 declared RTI as part of Article 19(1)(a) fundamental rights.

IPC Sections 120B, 403, 409, 166 & 217 are attracted for conspiracy, breach of trust, misappropriation, and shielding of offenders.

6. PRAYER

In light of the above, the complainant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to:

a) Hold the PIO guilty of wilful non-compliance, fabrication of official records, and shielding corruption.

b) Impose P D[ L P XP SHQ DO W \ R I _ under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. RTI Act;

c) Recommend disciplinary action, immediate suspension, and removal under FR 56(j)/(l), CCS Pension Rules 1972, and CCS Conduct Rules;

d) Recommend criminal prosecution under IPC 120B, 403, 409, 166, 217 and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

e) Direct provision of all pending information including membership and defaulter lists free of cost, considering delay of nearly two years and corruption angle;

f) Award F RP SH QV DW L RQ R I _ X Q GH U 6H FW L RQ for harassment, trauma, and agony caused to the appellant (a senior citizen of 80 years);

g) Direct that all information be supplied free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, since the matter has been pending for almost two years and relates to corruption and organized malpractices. Any further demand of expenses would amount to harassment of the Appellant.

h) Make adverse remarks in the service records of the PIO to deter future misconduct;

i) Pass such other directions as deemed just and necessary in the interests of justice.”

5. A written submission dated 14.08.2025 filed by the Respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:

“Kindly refer to the notice no. File no. CIC/RECOS/A/2023/127486 dated 11.10.2023 by the Deputy Registrar, CIC, New Delhi, the following information is being supplied in respect of the RTI dated 02.02.2023.

Copy of the order dated may be provided to the applicant.

No such information as sought by the applicant is available with the records of this branch.

Decision: If the information is not available in electronic form, it does not be created for the appellant. Shri B.H Veersha Vs. Deputy General Manager & Appellate Authority, Canara Bank, 14/IC(A)/2006) Appeal no.

Copy of the order dated may be provided to the applicant.

No such information as sought by the applicant is available with the records of this branch.

Decision If the information is not available in electronic form, it does not be created for the appellant. Shri B.H Veersha Vs. Deputy General Manager & Appellate Authority, Canara Bank, Appeal 14/IC(A)/2006) по.

The information is being sought is voluminous in nature So the applicant is requested to visit the office for inspection of available records.

A Public Authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and or making assumptions.

(CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandoupadhyay & Ors. C.A No. 6454/2011)

Questions for explanations, reasons, advices, etc. like the ones this appellant has made lie well beyond the scope of Sections 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; and merit no response.

(Decision in the case of Shri Krinhna Raghav Vs Department of Expenditure, F.No .CIC/AT/A/2010/224)

Questions for explanations, reasons, advices, etc. like the ones this appellant has made lie well beyond the scope of Sections 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; and merit no response.

(Decision in the case of Shri Krinhna Raghav Vs Department of Expenditure, F.No CIC/AT/A/2010/224).

Questions for explanations, reasons, advices, etc. like the ones this appellant has made lie well beyond the scope of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; and merit no response

(Decision in the case of Shri Krinhna Raghav Vs Department of Expenditure, F.No .CIC/AT/A/2010/224)”

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.

6. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 08.06.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non-service.

7. The representative of the Complainant contended that despite directions of the FAA, the information sought has not been provided by the PIO till the date of hearing. Accordingly, he requested the Commission to direct the PIO to provide complete information without further delay and requested to take necessary action against the concerned PIO as per the provision of the RTI Act.

8. The respondent submitted that as per their records, the FAA’s order was not complied with by the then PIO. He apologized for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant as well as the Commission and assured that no such incident would recur in future. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, he prepared a revised updated reply and filed the same before the Commission in the form of written submission. During hearing, he handed over a copy of their written submission to the Complainant which is taken on record.

9. On a query by the Bench, the Respondent informed that FAA passed the orders in a predefined manner and never called the parties for hearing by giving due notice. However, the PIO has not availed the opportunity of filing Second Appeal before the Commission against the order of FAA.

Decision:

10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the FAA’s directions were not complied with by the PIO till the date of hearing. The respondent PIO who appeared before the Commission apologized for their mistake and assured that no such incident would recur in future. The PIO is cautioned to be careful in future while dealing with the RTI application.

11. The Commission observed that instant case is a complaint filed under Section 18(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864.

12. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon close scrutiny records it is observed that Respondent had made an effort to provide a reasonable reply now vide written submission which is in the spirit of the RTI Act.

13. Nonetheless, the Commission at the outset is unhappy with the fact that order of the FAA for giving revised reply has not been complied by the PIO till date. Although, a mala fide or deliberate intention of the erring PIO does not appear in the facts of the instant case but the casual approach of such officers attract severe admonition of the Commission.

14. However, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any penal action against the CPIO due to the fact that adequate reply has been given by the Respondent and the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant Complaint upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bonafide interest of the Appellant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the applicant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Appellants before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus, leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.

15. No mala-fide is established on part of the PIO in this case. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:

“…61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot Page 6 of 9 automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed....”

16. Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter.

17. Yet, the Respondent is advised to fulfil his commitments in a timely manner.

18. Additionally, an advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority to provide a due opportunity of being heard to the parties while adjudicating the First Appeal in view of principle of natural justice.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: S K T Sherman v. O/o the Registrar Cooperative Societies, File No: CIC/REGCS/C/2024/624441; Date of Decision: 18.08.2025