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

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

Respondent apologized for not replying contending that there is no link officer to deal with the RTI applications - CIC: A mechanism for appointment of Link Officers be institutionalized under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

PIO: Marks data of the Typing test was uploaded on the SSC website for a specific period of time and not readily available - CIC: Information is now required to be created after decoding the available data, which is not the mandate of the RTI Act

Marks scored by the appellant in exam for Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs & Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF - Respondent: Result of candidate was withheld - CIC: No exemption clause invoked; SCN issued to PIO for arbitrary denial; Provide information

Copy of the 10 finger and thumb impressions taken on biometric were denied by UIDAI claiming that sharing of "core biometric information" is prohibited u/s 2(i) of Aadhaar Act - CIC: PIO’s response is legally appropriate; No further intervention necessary

CIC: 20 Second Appeal cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authorities had already been disposed of by CIC while 9 are listed; Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional

CIC: FAA’s order set aside holding that the directions for disclosure of information were passed without application of mind; Personal details including educational qualification of other candidates is held by UPSC in as fiduciary, exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

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

Degree of an individual is personal and does not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act

Inordinate delay in the hearing and disposal of second appeals

Information Commissioner abdicated the statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government

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

Respondent apologized for not replying contending that there is no link officer to deal with the RTI applications - CIC: A mechanism for appointment of Link Officers be institutionalized under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

20 Oct, 2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“1. Provide the details of the employees who sought permission to study 10th standard/12th standard/UG degree /PG degree/Ph.D/Law through regular and distance education from 2015-2023 in Patent office, Chennai. If so provide copies thereof.

2. Provide the details of the employees who were sanctioned/denied permission to pursue their education by the competent authority in Patent office, Chennai. Provide copies of the permission so granted and the letter of refusal.

3. Provide the details of the employees who got promotion after completion of the education through such sanction in Patent office, Chennai.

It is hereby requested to kindly inform the time, date and venue for inspection of all relevant records/ files u/r of 2(j)(ii).”

2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.12.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Ms. Seema Jangra, Assistant Controller & CPIO and Shri Nilesh Patil, Assistant Controller & Nodal Officer present through Video-Conference.

4. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 16.02.2024 is not available on record.

5. The Respondent informed the Commission that inadvertently they have missed giving reply to the Appellant on his RTI application. The Respondent assured during the hearing that they will provide reply to the Appellant as per his RTI application. The Respondent tendered their unconditional apology for the same. The Respondent further contended that there is no link officer in their organization so as to received and deal with the RTI applications.

6. The Respondent, during the hearing, orally submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which 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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.

7. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that on 05.08.2025, they have received the hearing notice of the Commission.

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that no information was provided to him by the Respondent within stipulated period as per the RTI Act.

9. There is nothing on record to show that any reply was given to the Appellant. The Respondent, during the hearing, assured that they will provide reply to the Appellant as per his RTI application.

10. In view of the above observations, the Respondent is directed to examine the RTI application dated 23.11.2023 of the Appellant and give point-wise reply, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

11. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.

12. It has been observed that disposal of RTI applications and first appeals gets delayed due to the absence on transfer or being on leave of the designated Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs). This adversely affects timely compliance with the statutory timelines prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005.

13. In order to ensure uninterrupted functioning and accountability in handling RTI applications/appeals, it is advisable that a mechanism for appointment of Link Officers be institutionalized across all offices under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks.

14. Implementation of the above mechanism will strengthen transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the functioning of the office, and will also ensure that the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005 is fulfilled without procedural delays.

15. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: G Gunasekar v. Office of the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks, File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2024/106037; Date of Decision: 09.09.2025

Respondent apologized for not replying contending that there is no link officer to deal with the RTI applications - CIC: A mechanism for appointment of Link Officers be institutionalized under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.