Bachan Singh Rana vs Central Public Information Officer And Others

$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6420/2022
Date of Decision : 07.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

BACHAN SINGH RANA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aditi Gupta, DHCLSC.

versus

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. VSR Krishna with Mr. Shashank
Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had filed an application dated 16.08.2020 with 17
queries for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
( hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The queries broadly were pertaining to
: (1) the basis and rate of wages payable to the petitioner from 1994 to 2003
(separated on a half yearly basis); (2) list of daily wage workers in the
concerned department who were, or were not, granted temporary status and
accompanying benefits; (3) the rules governing payment of festival bonus
from 1996 to 2006; and (4) copies of various office memoranda, department
orders and communications as extracted below:-
“Point No.5:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21
W.P.(C) 6420/2022 Page 1 of 7

New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35-10/98-Estt-II Dated 08 Jun
1998, Subject:- Grant of Temporary Status to the daily wages
employees working at the AIIMS.

Point No.6:- Please provide attested copy of Order of the Govt. of
India, Ministry of Personnel Public & Pensions letter No. 49011/2/97-
Estt(D), the dated 24-10-1997 as mentioned in the AIIMS, Ansari
Nagar, New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35- 10/98-Estt-II Dated 08
Jun 1998.

Point No.7:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35-10/98-Estt-II (Part. File) Dated
the 16-03-1999.

Point No.8:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35-10/98-Estt-II Dated the 29 June
1999.

Point No.9:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35-11/2000-Estt-II (Part. File)
Dated the 23-04-2001.

Point No.10:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35-11/2000-Estt-II (Part. File)
Dated the 23-04-2001.

Point No.11:- Please provide attested copy of Ministry of Personnel,
Public & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training O.M. No.
F.51016/2/90-Estt.(c), dated 10-9- 1993.

Point No.12:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35/11(Helper)/2000-Estt.II, Dated
the 11 Nov. 2002.

Point No.13:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.35/11/2000-Estt.II, Dated the 05-
05-2003.

Point No.14:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Memorandum No. F.3-9/2002-Estt.I, Dated the 23 Oct.
2003, Subject: Offer of temporary appointment to the temporary post
of Khalasi at the AIIMS, New Delhi-29.

Point No.15:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Office Memorandum No. F.35-10/98-Estt-I. (P.F.)
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21
W.P.(C) 6420/2022 Page 2 of 7

Dated the 13 AUG 2009, Subject: Regularisation of Goup 'D'
employees working on Ad-hoc/Temporary Status/Daily Wages at the
AIIMS, New Delhi - Khalasi.

Point No.16:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Office Memorandum No. F.GWP-
456/95/HC/Engg/1200-06, dated 14 Jun 1999 having Subject: In the
matters of Daily Wagers regarding regularization of their services at
AIIMS.

Point No.17:- Please provide attested copy of AIIMS, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi-29 Office Memorandum No. F.35-10/98-Estt.I, Dated the
OS JAN 2009, Subject: Regularization of Group 'D' Employees
working on Temporary Status at AIIMS.”


2. Vide reply dated 22.09.2020, the Public Information Officer [ PIO ]
informed the petitioner that some of the information in the queries made are
“personal information,” and that the remaining information was available in
the public domain, or was pertaining to other branches. The PIO has merely
referenced to Section 8(1) of the Act without expressly assigning reasons as
to how the information sought is personal, has no corelation to public
activity, or how it would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The
reply dated 22.09.2020 is extracted as under:

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21
W.P.(C) 6420/2022 Page 3 of 7

on 10.10.2020 that the information pertains to another branch and is not
available in the Establishment Branch. The petitioner then preferred first
appeal vide order dated 01.01.2021. The first appellate authority declined
interference, stating that a reply to the queries made by the petitioner was
sent on 10.10.2020.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21
W.P.(C) 6420/2022 Page 4 of 7

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged aforementioned order in
second appeal. The Central Information Commission [ CIC ] vide impugned
order dated 11.02.2022 has proceeded on the premise that the information
available on record and eligible to be furnished had already been furnished
therein. The CIC observed that the matter was barred by res judicata.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the record, this Court finds that the manner in which the queries have been
dealt with cannot be countenanced. The first appellate authority has failed to
apply its mind.
6. A perusal of replies dated 22.09.2020 and 10.10.2020 show that they
did not contain the relevant information as desired by the petitioner. The
petitioner was merely informed that different parts of the information sought
were available with different branches. Such an approach is contrary to the
mandate of the Act. The PIO is not permitted to drive the applicant from
pillar to post.
7. Under Section 5(3) of the Act, the PIO is obliged to deal with requests
for information and render reasonable assistance to the person seeking such
information. When the information sought is available in different wings or
branches of the same public authority, the PIO is empowered under Section
5(4) to seek assistance from any other officer. By virtue of Section 5(5),
such officer is also placed under a statutory obligation to render assistance.
8. If, however, any information pertaining to the query made is held by
another public authority, the application, or such part therein, is required to
be transferred under Section 6(3) of the Act within five days, with due
notice to the applicant. No such action has been taken in the present case.
9. While disposing of a request, the CPIO is required to either provide
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21
W.P.(C) 6420/2022 Page 5 of 7

the requested information, or reject the request for reasons specified in
Section 8 or 9 of the Act. The queries that sought copies of office
memoranda, departmental orders and communications (queries 5 - 17) were
to be transferred to the appropriate authority as per Section 6(3).
10. The information that are available on the public domain ought to have
been made accessible to the petitioners by providing him with the exact
particulars as to where and how such information may be obtained. The
replies on record indicate a complete non-application of mind on part of the
respondents.
11. According to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, information pertaining to
personal information that has no relationship with public activity or interest,
or that may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy may be withheld. A bare
reference to the Section 8(1) without disclosing how the information falls
within the statutory exemption is plainly insufficient.
12. It is, further, noted that in the present case, all queries do not stand on
the same footing. Information relating to the petitioner’s own wages, service
conditions and copies of general office memoranda cannot be mechanically
placed in the same category as information pertaining to a third party. The
respondents have failed to undertake a conscious examination of Section
8(1)(j). When some portion of the record is exempted, the respondents are
bound to consider whether the part that is not exempted can be disclosed
after severance in terms of Section 10. In case the disclosure of any
information pertaining to third-party interest is outweighed by a larger
public interest, procedure laid down in Section 11 is to be followed.
13. The CIC, in the impugned order has misconstrued Section 2(h), as the
provision merely defines “public authority” and does not govern the disposal
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21
W.P.(C) 6420/2022 Page 6 of 7

of a request for information. The relevant inquiry for which the matter came
before the CIC was whether the request had lawfully been dealt with in
terms of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act, and whether the denial was within
the ambit of Sections 8 and 9.
14. The principle of res judicata is also unsupported by any clear analysis
as to whether the proceedings pertained to the same subject matter involving
identical issues that had already been adjudicated. Mere mentioning of the
second appeal number is insufficient to sustain such a conclusion.

15. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 11.02.2022
passed by the Ld. CIC in File No. CIC/AIIMS/A/20221/111607 is set aside
and the application shall be restored to its original number.
16. The concerned PIO shall collate the relevant information from the
respective branches and provide them to the petitioner. In case any part of
the information sought is not readily available or cannot be supplied, the
specific reasons be assigned and communicated to the petitioner.
17. The information shall be furnished to the petitioner free of cost as the
petitioner had already borne the expense earlier.
18. In view of the aforementioned, the writ petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 7, 2026
tr
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:23.04.2026
13:32:21
W.P.(C) 6420/2022 Page 7 of 7