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

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

Action taken by the Hon’ble President of India regarding certain letters, copy of notesheet, movement register etc. was sought - CIC: Reply bears no relevance to the information sought for by the Appellant, rather the reply appears to be mechanical

CIC: No record was shown to exist with the Respondent regarding the complaint; complaint was not even addressed to the Respondent Authority instead it was sent to a different department; response by the PIO and FAA found to be as per the RTI Act

Water connection application and related information was sought - PIO: Documents submitted by third party for water connection, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exempt u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Denial upheld

Pension and basic pay details of her late father was considered as personal information as after death of the appellant’s father, information now pertains to her mother; Disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest; Exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

Husband was asked to provide proof such as marriage certificate or authorization letter from the Appellant for inspection of records of sexual harassment complaint - CIC: Information containing 332 pages would attract Sec 7(9) of RTI Act being voluminous

Appellant raised concerns pertaining to illegal construction - CIC took an adverse note of the conduct of the then PIO and FAA and directed the Additional Commissioner, MCD, to call their explanation and to take suitable action in the matter

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

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

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

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: No record was shown to exist with the Respondent regarding the complaint; complaint was not even addressed to the Respondent Authority instead it was sent to a different department; response by the PIO and FAA found to be as per the RTI Act

1 Jul, 2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Kindly inform me that what action was taken on my petition given on 26.07.2023.”

2. The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.12.2023 stating as under:

“The application is in the nature of a complaint and does not seek any specific information under RTI Act.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 10.01.2024, held as under:

“On perusal of records, it is found that the Appellant filed an RTI dated 27-11-2023 and the PIO had furnished the information stating, "The application is in the nature of a complaint and does not seek any specific information under RTI Act."

It is stated that "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.

The undersigned scrupulously gone through the RTI application and like to remind that under 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; of RTI, the PIO can only provide the information as mentioned above. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.

As the information sought is a complaint against an official and the requested records are also not available with this office, the Undersigned had come to a conclusion that the Public Information Officer had done his part as per rules and hence, the present appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, the applicant can ask the status of his complaint through petitions addressed to the concerned authorities who deal with his complaint petition.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through vide conference.

Respondent: Shri V. Vaitinadane, PIO-cum-Dy. Director (Sports & Youth Affairs), appeared through video conference.

5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the Respondent Authority.

6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated Nil disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

“The applicant Thiru. V. Kumaran filed an RTI under Right to Information Act (Form-1) seeking information about what action had been taken on his petition dated 09-06-2023. In his petition dated 09-06-2023, the petitioner had alleged that his son had not been selected in SGFI National Level shuttle tournament, though his is very much eligible. In his petition, Thiru. V. Kumaran had alleged the former Deputy Director of Sports & Youth Affairs, Thiru. Sivakumar.

It is to be noted that Thiru. V. Kumaran had submitted a petition on 26-07- 2023 addressed to the Director of School Education. On 27-11-2023, the applicant Thiru. V. Kumaran, furnished an RTI under Form-1 seeking information about what action had been taken on his petition dated 26-07- 2023.

This Directorate rejected the RTI application stating that the application is in the nature of a complaint and does not seek any specific information under RTI Act. The applicant Thiru. V. Kumaran, not satisfied with the rejection Order filed an appeal petition to First Appellate Authority on 27-12-2023. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that as per well-defined RTI Rules, it is to be stated that "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.

The applicant had sought information about his complaint petition and not requested any specific documents. Moreover, his complaint petition was addressed to the Director of School Education and this Office does not have any records relating to what action had been taken on his petition. The PIO gone through the RTI application and submit to state that under 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; of RTI, the PIO can only provide the information as mentioned above. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.

As the information sought is a complaint against an official and the requested records are also not available with this office, the Public Information Officer had done his part as per well-defined rules. However, the applicant can ask the status of his complaint through petitions addressed to the concerned authorities who deal with his complaint petition. Hence this Directorate requests this RTI appeal petition may be disposed of.”

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 Appellant sought information regarding action taken on his representation dated 26.07.2023 which pertained to alleged denial of selection of his son in a sports tournament. The said representation was addressed to the Director of School Education, Puducherry. However, the Appellant has filed the instant RTI application before the PIO, Director of Sports & Youth Affairs, Puducherry which is a different Public Authority.

In this case, no record was shown to exist with the Respondent regarding the complaint. Further, the complaint was not even addressed to the Respondent Authority instead it was sent to a different department. Hence, the response by the PIO and the subsequent FAA’s order are found to be in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in this matter. The Appellant is at liberty to file fresh RTI application with the Education Department which is a separate Public Authority.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: V Kumaran v. O/O The PIO UT of Puducherry Director Of Sports & Youth Affairs, CIC/UTPON/A/2024/106005; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025

CIC: No record was shown to exist with the Respondent regarding the complaint; complaint was not even addressed to the Respondent Authority instead it was sent to a different department; response by the PIO and FAA found to be as per the RTI Act

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.