Libertatem Magazine

The Central Information Commission Orders Public Information Officer To Furnish a Reply on the Designated Schedule.

Contents of this Page


The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2019 seeking information on 18 points, some of them are the CPIO/Administrative Officer, AIIMS, New Delhi vide letter dated 18.02.2019 reply against question 1-3, 7, 8-10, 13-14. The RTI application was sent to CPIO, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited [BECIL], and CPIO, ACT/SC&ST for answering the remaining queries. Disappointed with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on the date 05.04.2019. The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2019 referred to the reply already furnished by the PIO and was affronted and dissatisfied. The Appellant approached the Commission with the Second Appeal instantly. The PIO, BECIL on the other hand contended that information held by them had been embellished to the appellant although no document was placed on record by the PIO, BECIL. The PIO submitted that he would place the pertinent reply on record during the course of the day. 


The parties were heard through audio conference and the appellant claimed that he persuaded information from the Office of the Director, AIIMS while response had been provided by the complaints Section. Henceforth, accurate information had not been made available in response to his interrogation. The respondent during the hearing stated that the appellant had been provided information as available on record vide reply dated 20.04.2019. The Appellant disclosed that the appeal was an outcome of his claim that he had not provisioned a response to his queries number 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. 

 Court’s Observation

The commission observed and granted time to the Respondent-PIO, BECIL to submit applicable documents colluding his disagreement that information was enhanced to the appellant. However, there was no such document placed on record. The only document from BECIL which was found on record was a letter dated 06.05.2019 attached with the submission dated 10.06.2021 received from Dr. Sanjay Kumar Arya reference to which the information was refused owing to the suspension of the appellant’s case in court. In the absence of any restraint order from the Court, the denial of information by PIO, BECIL-Shri Mahesh Chand was legally untenable, and therefore the reply dated 06.05.2019 was put away.

Court’s Decision

The commission directed that full reply would be provided to the appellant within the time of six weeks of this order and consent therein shall be outlined by PIO, BECIL before the Commission by the date 31.07.2021. The PIO, Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited [BECIL] – Shri Mahesh Chand was administered to appoint a precise reply having responses to the queries 4-6, 11,15-18 and part information against a question no. 7 which had been passed on by PIO, Recruitment Cell, AIIMS to PIO, BBECIL Consequently, the appeal was disposed of. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author