A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Appellant: Number of vehicles of particular code has not been provided by the RTO office despite directions from FAA - CIC directed to comply with the directions of the FAA and give revised reply; Respondent admonished for remaining absent during hearing

CIC: An advisory is issued to OSD to Chief Secretary, A & N Admin. to issue a direction to their PIO’s & FAA’s to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to RTI Applications & First Appeal in future

Information about an employee was sought claiming that he got the job by submitting forged documents - PIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) and 11 - CIC: Appellant failed to substantiate his claim by submitting any document to support of his contentions

CIC: Reply given by the respondent is not categorical and not in tune with the submissions tendered during the hearing; Provide a revised updated reply intimating the specific URL hyperlink/stepwise path where the information can be accessed

Information regarding House Building advance - The custodian of information did not appear before the CIC despite knowing the fact that the matter pertained to them and hearing notices were issued to them - SCN issued for penalty and compensation

Pension documents of his father being 63 years old have been destroyed as per Northern Railway instruction regarding schedule of retention of old records - CIC: Facilitate an opportunity of inspection of records; Make efforts to redress the grievance

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Does non-maintenance of records defeat the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant?

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 release by MeitY for public consultation

Delhi High Court directs Jamia Millia Islamia University to disclose PhD Thesis under the RTI Act

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: Reply given by the respondent is not categorical and not in tune with the submissions tendered during the hearing; Provide a revised updated reply intimating the specific URL hyperlink/stepwise path where the information can be accessed

14 Mar, 2025

CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648355

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“I am writing to seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, regarding the termination of the contract of M/s Aastha Electricals by Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) from the Dehradun SLNP (Street Lighting National Programme) project on 5 June 2023.

Specifically, I request the following information related to the termination of M/s Aastha Electricals from the SLNP project at Dehradun:

1. Please provide the complete note-sheet and a copy of the full file related to the termination of the contract of M/s Aastha Electricals from the Dehradun SLNP project on 5 June 2023. This includes all documents, correspondence, and communication within EESL related to the M/s Aastha Electricals's work termination processing.

2. Kindly disclose the mode of file processing used during the termination process. Please specify whether E-Office or hard copy-based file processing was employed.

3. I request information about the names, designations, and departments of the officers of EESL involved in processing the file for the termination of the contract with M/s Aastha Electricals from the SLNP project. Specifically, I seek information about the officers who initiated, reviewed, and approved the termination process.

4. Please provide the names, designations, and departments of the officials of EESL who granted permission for the termination of M/s Aastha Electricals from the SLNP project at Dehradun.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 11.08.2023 stating as under:

“Response to Query 1: This information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(d).

Response to Query 2: This information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(d).

Response to Query 3: This information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(g).

Response to Query 4: This information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(g).”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 19.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648573

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“I am writing to seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This is regarding Bank Guarantees submitted to EESL.

The actual information required is as follows:

1) Please Provide the details of the vendors who have submitted the Bank Guarantees to EESL but still EESL has deducted payments from their invoices against Bank Guarantees submission.

2) Please provide the required information agency-wise, Bank Guarantee wise, including the amount of Bank Guarantee submitted and amount retained from the invoices.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 17.08.2023 stating as under:

“Response to Query 1: This said information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(d).

Response to Query 2: This said information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(d).”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648576

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“I am writing to seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The actual information required is as follows:

1) Please provide the details of MSME Vendors who have or are currently working in EESL. Include the total number of MSME agencies, Name of each agency.

2) Please provide the details regarding the MSME agencies who have applied for the interest on delay payments by EESL. Include the name of MSME agency and amount of interest applied.

3) Please provide the details of interest payment on delay payments by EESL. Include the name of MSME agency to which the interest is paid, amount of the interest payment made by EESL.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 26.09.2023 stating as under:

“Response to query 1: The information pertaining to the LoAs placed to MSME agencies by EESL can be accessed at https://eeslindia.org/en/tenders/ under procurement tab.

Response to Query 2 and 3: Information cannot be shared under section 8 (1) D and 8 (1) E of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 05.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648374

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“1. Please provide a detailed list of all the Debtors and Creditors, as per the Audited Balance Sheet of the last three years (31-03-2021, 31-03-2022, 31-03-2023). Include the details such as names and other details of Debtors and Creditors and amounts.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31.08.2023 stating as under:

“Response to Query 1: This information related to Debtors cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1) e and 8 (1) d.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648379

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“I am writing to seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Please provide the following information related to Street Lighting National Programme:

1) Please provide the details of the payments released from 1 April 2023 to 20 July 2023 to various agencies working under EESL for the SLNP project in various states of India. Provide the data agency-wise, and include date and amount of invoice submitted by the agency and date of payments released by EESL.

2) Please provide the details of payments pending in Finance Department of EESL up to 20 July 2023 of various agency working under EESL for the SLNP projects. Also Include the date and amount of the pending invoice submitted by the agency.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 22.08.2023 stating as under:

“Response to Query 1: The said information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(d).

Response to Query 2: The said information cannot be shared as per RTI Act, 2005-8(1)(d).”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648580

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“I am writing to seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This is regarding the release of payments in EESL.

The actual information required is as follows:

1. In how many days the payments are released by EESL after the acceptance of service or material and submission of the invoice by the service or material providing agency?

2. On what basis the invoices are selected for payments release in EESL?

Is it released on the basis of the date of invoice submission meaning the agencies whose invoices are submitted first get the payments of those invoices first OR is the pick and chose method applied by EESL during the selection of invoices for the release of payments?

3. Are the payments released to the agencies working under EESL as per the mentioned time limit of the GST Act? Also, specify whether other guidelines of the GST Act are followed in EESL during the release of payments.

4. Are the payments of all the agencies or vendors released within the required time limit as per government norms? Which officer is responsible for the monitoring of payment files so that the payments are released within time? Please provide the name, designation, and department of the responsible official of EESL.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 05.09.2023 stating as under:

“Response to Query 1: Payment to vendors are being released post compliance of payment term conditions as stated in the respective LoAs.

Response to Query 2: Initially payment to vendors is being processed by technical department and subsequently finance scrutinizes them with reference to the commercial aspects of respective LoA and applicable tax laws. After that, payable amounts to the vendor are released.

Response to Query 3 and 4: EESL complies with the directions as contained in GST Act, rules and guidance issued time to time by Government of India. Prudent norms are being followed for release of payment to vendors. The other part of information cannot be shared under section 8 (D) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.

A common written submission dated 22.01.2025 has been filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Thakur, CPIO for all the instant appeals, which is taken on record.

Contents of the same are reproduced below for reference:

1) Excessive volume of RTI applications: The applicant submitted an astonishing 25 RTI applications, including this one, to this Public Authority (EESL) within a brief span of just 1-2 months (July - August 2023). This extraordinarily high volume burdened EESL's RTI Cell and other respondent departments, already managing a significant workload from their regular responsibilities, contravening section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI act.

2) Complex and overlapping queries: The applicant's queries were neither simple nor straightforward. Instead, they were broad in scope and ambit in each application. These queries required inputs from multiple departments within EESL, including the Contracts, Finance, and Technical Departments, thereby adding considerable complexity to the process. The sheer breadth of the queries demonstrated a lack of focus, hinted at spitefulness, and imposed substantial challenges on EESL. Personal details of EESL's officials have been sought under many queries, raising concern about the applicant's potential ulterior motives.

3) Vexation: The applicant's current move of filing abnormally high applications within a short spam appears to be frivolous and vexatious and might not be focused on attaining any information but hints at a doubtful intent. Filing 26 RTI applications endlessly consumes the critical work hours of this Public Authority and the crucial time of the Central Information Commission, which could have otherwise been utilized more constructively.

4) Lack of transparency and accountability: The RTI Act is founded on the principle of public interest. It is stated that the information sought herein has no bearing on public accountability and principles of transparency. Therefore, EESL may be given the right to deny and withhold the information herein under relevant sections of the RTI Act, 2005.

5) It is respectfully requested that these matters be rejected on the above- mentioned grounds. The applicant may be advised to use an appropriate channel to address commercial disputes, if any, and not misuse the RTI Act.”

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Shri J S Aujla, CGM (T)-cum-the then CPIO along with Shri Sameer Agarwal, GM (F), Shri Darpan Mago, Deputy Manager (PR), Shri Raj Kumar Rakhra, CGM (T), Shri Yogesh Gujjar, GM (Contract), Shri Alok Mittal, AGM (Contracts) present in person.

Appellant at the outset claims himself to be the authorized counsel of M/s Aastha Electricals to whom contract for SLNP (Street Lighting National Programme) project, Dehradun was awarded by EESL which was subsequently terminated. The issue for termination of contract is sub-judice before the Court of Law. Through instant RTI applications, the appellant has sought information with plea on larger public interest as the Respondent organization is alleged to have been indulged in corrupt practices of not making payments to their vendor as per MSME norms/guidelines. He expressed his astonishment to the fact that information has been mala fidely withheld/denied by the CPIO to save the corrupt officers.

In case file Nos. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648355, CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648573 and CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648576, Shri Darpan Mago, Deputy Manager (PR), stated that point- wise reply in each case has already been provided to the appellant as quoted in the preceding paragraphs. Further, the issue regarding termination of contract is pending before arbitration, therefore, the appellant has an alternative channel to access the relevant information.

In the case of File No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648374, Shri Sameer Agarwal, GM (F), EESL the balance sheet is already available on their website under the head annual reports and can be easily accessed. During the hearing, he showed the annual reports on the system of the Commission which are perused and noted in record.

In the case of File No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648379, Shri Sameer Agarwal, GM (F), expressed his willingness to provide the total payment made to agencies for the period mentioned in the RTI application except personal details of agency.

In the case of File No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648580, Appellant contended that the reply of the CPIO is not as per his desire. To which, the respondent stated that a point-wise reply has already been provided to the appellant.

Upon being queried by the Commission, Shri Sameer Agarwal, GM (F), EESL and Shri Darpan Mago, Deputy Manager (PR), EESL explained that release of payments is prioritized for all fit (completeness and admissibility) cases based on exigency of project and on the basis of electronic FIFO (First-In First-Out) mode.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the core contention raised by the appellant in these appeals were unsatisfactory replies and in turn, non-receipt of complete desired information from the CPIO. To which, the respondent clarified the factual position as quoted in the preceding paragraphs. Here, the Commission has arrived at the following conclusion (case wise).

In case file No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648355, there is no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent on all points of RTI application except at point No. 2, as the same are in lines with the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of this, the respondent is directed to provide a revised updated reply against point No. 2 of RTI Application intimating the mode of file processing during termination of contract. This reply should be given to the appellant by the respondent, free of cost, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

In case file No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648573 and CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648576, The Commission finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the Respondent as the same is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be granted in these matters.

In the case of File No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648374, the reply given by the respondent is not categorical and not in tune with the submissions tendered by the respondent during the hearing. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to provide a revised updated reply intimating the specific URL hyperlink/stepwise path from where the information sought can be accessed. This reply should be given to the appellant by the respondent, free of cost, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

In the case of File No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648379, as per the commitments made by the respondent during hearing, the respondent is directed to provide a revised updated reply informing the total payment made to agencies working under EESL for the SLNP project, for the period mentioned in the RTI application except personal/exempted details of agency. This reply should be given to the appellant by the respondent, free of cost, within 4 weeks of the date of receipt of this order.

In the case of File No. CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648580, there is no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent on all points of RTI application except at point No. 2, as the same are as per the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of this, the respondent is directed to provide a revised updated reply against point No. 2 of RTI Application intimating the mode of prioritizing the release of payments to vendor in case the budget available is less than the total amount to be paid.

This reply should be given to the appellant by the respondent, free of cost, within 4 weeks of the date of receipt of this order.

FAA to ensure compliance of the above directions.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Advocate Anil Kumar Garg v. Energy Efficiency Services Ltd., CIC/EESLP/A/2023/648355, /648573, /648576, /648374, /648379, /648580; Date of Decision : 20.02.2025

CIC: Reply given by the respondent is not categorical and not in tune with the submissions tendered during the hearing; Provide a revised updated reply intimating the specific URL hyperlink/stepwise path where the information can be accessed

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.