The respondent informed that the RTI Application was filed by Ms. Saroj Gupta and as the information was sought regarding report of auditing pertaining to grant of said 3rd MACP of Sh. Mangat Goyal, the same was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was counter argued by Sh. Mangat Goyal that the Appellant is his wife who had filed the RTI Application on his behalf seeking internal audit report related to him and denial of the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is wrong. The respondent further stated that the report is a 10 years old record and is not traceable in their official records. Considering the fact that Shri Mangat Goyal represented the Appellant during the hearing, the CIC ruled that the plea of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) does not survive. The CIC directed to examine the instant RTI Application and furnish a revised reply within four weeks. In the event, no records on such points are available in their office, the fact should be categorically reflected in the revised reply of the PIO.
Comments
It is preferable for an individual to file an application directly under the RTI Act instead of asking a friend or a relative to seek information on one’s behalf.
Citation: Saroj Gupta v. Sports Authority of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/SAOIN/A/2024/643474; Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an accomplished Right to Information (RTI) consultant who has worked for organisations such as IIM Indore, IIM Mumbai, IIM Visakhapatnam and ICAI. She is the co-author of two widely acclaimed books, PIO's Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. She conducts training programmes, workshops, and capacity-building sessions on the RTI Act. She also provides consultancy services on RTI implementation, compliance, and third-party audits. Her weekly article has been published on this website since 2008. Other articles and publications can be accessed on the RTI Foundation website at: www.rtifoundationofindia.com