The Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 4th
June 2026.
The Central Information Commission was listening to a complaint filed by a man who had not received the reply to his RTI application since past one-and-a-half years.
Calling out a public
information officer for wasting its “valuable time, energy and resources”, the
Central Information Commission (CIC) recently imposed a penalty of Rs 1,000 for
hindering effective adjudication of the concerns raised by a man.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari was hearing a complaint filed by a man who had not received any reply to his right to information (RTI) application after passing of one-and-a-half years of filing the same online.
“The conduct of the officer concerned resulted in wastage of the valuable time, energy and resources of the commission and impeded the effective adjudication of the matter,” the June 1 order read.
‘Delayed reply’
The commission observed that more than one-and-a-half years had elapsed from the date of the RTI application, and yet no reply had been given to the complainant even after the direction of the FAA.
It was also noted that the officer concerned not only did not participate in the hearing, but also his representative had not filed a proper authority letter to represent the case on his behalf, nor was he acquainted with the facts of the case.
The authority letter produced before the commission was also found to be “deficient,” having been signed by an unidentified person without disclosing his name, designation or contact details.
The commission expressed severe displeasure with the conduct of the officer for neither providing any reply nor participating in the hearing despite prior intimation. This conduct, as per the commission, “trampled” upon the citizen’s right under the RTI Act as well as showed a lack of respect towards the commission.
Consequently, the commission issued a show cause notice to the officer, directing him to explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against them under the RTI Act for his conduct.
Following the above occurrences, on April 24, 2026, a reply was sent by the officer to the complainant through the offline mode, providing relevant answers to the questions posed. Before this reply, another reply had been sent by the officer on September 26, 2022, following the directions of the first appellate authority.
‘Busy in field inspection’
The officer in question filed a written submission dated March 7, 2025, stating that since he was “busy in field inspection on the day of hearing since morning and was not present in the office to sign the authority letter,” the authority letter was hence signed by the next most senior official present in the office.
He also apologised for the format of the authority letter and further submitted that the office of executive engineer was running with an acute shortage of engineering and ministerial staff, and hence an official who was discharging a clerical job as a “stopgap arrangement” was directed to attend the hearing.
‘Hindered effective adjudication’
The commission recorded that because the officer concerned was not present during the previous hearing and the representative deputed failed to answer basic queries regarding the status of the RTI application, the commission was deprived of effective assistance in adjudicating the matter.
It was noted by the commission that the explanation furnished by the officer did not “satisfactorily explain’ as to why no properly authorised officer, knowing the facts of the case, was assigned to represent the matter before the Commission.
The commission also pointed out that the RTI application in the present matter was filed through the online portal, but the reply to the same was furnished through offline mode instead of through the portal, and no justification had been offered for such “deviation”, thereby causing avoidable ambiguity regarding transparency of the RTI process.
The commission held that the appearance before it in proceedings under the RTI Act was a statutory responsibility and could not be treated casually, calling the conduct of the officer concerned to have resulted in the “wastage of the valuable time, energy and resources of the commission” and hindered the effective adjudication of the matter.
Considering the case to be fit for imposition of a penalty, the commission ordered an amount of Rs 1,000 to be deducted from the salary of the officer in favour of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Central Information Commission was listening to a complaint filed by a man who had not received the reply to his RTI application since past one-and-a-half years.
 |
The Central Information
Commission held that the conduct of the public information officer had hindered
the effective adjudication of the matter. (AI Generated Image) |
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari was hearing a complaint filed by a man who had not received any reply to his right to information (RTI) application after passing of one-and-a-half years of filing the same online.
“The conduct of the officer concerned resulted in wastage of the valuable time, energy and resources of the commission and impeded the effective adjudication of the matter,” the June 1 order read.
 |
The commission held that
the appearance before the Central Information Commission proceedings was a
statutory responsibility and could not be treated casually. |
- The complainant filed an RTI application on July 25, 2022.
- The said application sought a clear and certified copy of the communication between the office of executive engineer and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited regarding the disconnection of electricity connections from unauthorised construction at a specific part of Naraina Village, New Delhi.
- The application also sought a clear and certified copy of the communication made between the officer concerned and Delhi Jal Board regarding the disconnection of water supply from unauthorised construction at a specific part of Naraina Village, New Delhi.
- The complainant, however, did not receive any response from the officer and hence filed a first appeal on August 24, 2022.
- The first appellate authority, by its order dated September 14, 2022, observed that, as per the assistant public information officer (APIO), the RTI application had not been received from the nodal officer of the authorities concerned and, till date, they were unable to provide the required information to the appellant.
- The RTI application received with the appeal was handed over to the APIO during the hearing, and the concerned authorities were directed to provide the information as desired in the RTI application to the complainant within 7 days.
- The complainant, aggrieved by the non-compliance of the appellate authority’s order, approached the CIC.
- During the hearing held on February 4, 2025, the complainant was present. However, it was noted that the officer concerned remained absent, and a representative had appeared on his behalf.
The commission observed that more than one-and-a-half years had elapsed from the date of the RTI application, and yet no reply had been given to the complainant even after the direction of the FAA.
It was also noted that the officer concerned not only did not participate in the hearing, but also his representative had not filed a proper authority letter to represent the case on his behalf, nor was he acquainted with the facts of the case.
The authority letter produced before the commission was also found to be “deficient,” having been signed by an unidentified person without disclosing his name, designation or contact details.
The commission expressed severe displeasure with the conduct of the officer for neither providing any reply nor participating in the hearing despite prior intimation. This conduct, as per the commission, “trampled” upon the citizen’s right under the RTI Act as well as showed a lack of respect towards the commission.
Consequently, the commission issued a show cause notice to the officer, directing him to explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against them under the RTI Act for his conduct.
Following the above occurrences, on April 24, 2026, a reply was sent by the officer to the complainant through the offline mode, providing relevant answers to the questions posed. Before this reply, another reply had been sent by the officer on September 26, 2022, following the directions of the first appellate authority.
‘Busy in field inspection’
The officer in question filed a written submission dated March 7, 2025, stating that since he was “busy in field inspection on the day of hearing since morning and was not present in the office to sign the authority letter,” the authority letter was hence signed by the next most senior official present in the office.
He also apologised for the format of the authority letter and further submitted that the office of executive engineer was running with an acute shortage of engineering and ministerial staff, and hence an official who was discharging a clerical job as a “stopgap arrangement” was directed to attend the hearing.
‘Hindered effective adjudication’
The commission recorded that because the officer concerned was not present during the previous hearing and the representative deputed failed to answer basic queries regarding the status of the RTI application, the commission was deprived of effective assistance in adjudicating the matter.
It was noted by the commission that the explanation furnished by the officer did not “satisfactorily explain’ as to why no properly authorised officer, knowing the facts of the case, was assigned to represent the matter before the Commission.
The commission also pointed out that the RTI application in the present matter was filed through the online portal, but the reply to the same was furnished through offline mode instead of through the portal, and no justification had been offered for such “deviation”, thereby causing avoidable ambiguity regarding transparency of the RTI process.
The commission held that the appearance before it in proceedings under the RTI Act was a statutory responsibility and could not be treated casually, calling the conduct of the officer concerned to have resulted in the “wastage of the valuable time, energy and resources of the commission” and hindered the effective adjudication of the matter.
Considering the case to be fit for imposition of a penalty, the commission ordered an amount of Rs 1,000 to be deducted from the salary of the officer in favour of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
.JPG)
.JPG)
