Central Information Commission
Harinder Pal Singh vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 13 March, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837
Harinder Pal Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Police Department
UT of Chandigarh ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.06.2024 FA : 24.07.2024 SA : 08.08.2024
CPIO : 22.07.2024 FAO : 05.08.2024 Hearing : 03.03.2026
Date of Decision: 13.03.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2024, before the CPIO, UT Chandigarh- Police Department, seeking information as under:
"The undersigned has filed complaint having ref no PVW202115885 regarding harassment, and complaints dated 18.04.2023 and 21.04.2023, ICMS/2024/006141, ICMS/2024/008958, ICMS/2024/10983 AND ICMS/2024/10985, and ICMS/2024/016854 regarding forgery, fabrication and misrepresentation in respect of Revised building plan of House no 589 Sector 20-A Chandigarh (RP 8840) All these complaints have been clubbed together and now marked to Jurisdiction of DSP (central) from office of DSP Page 1 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837 (East) as per letter dated 21.06.2024 sent by office of SSP, UT vide no C-24792/24/5200.
All the queries are related to the said complaints and as such there is no third party query. The applicant needs information which is in the public domain. PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS SOUGHT:-
1. I intend to seek the copy of my complaint having ref no PW202115885 and the statement of the complainant and the alleged accused alongwith comments of investigation officer ASI Naresh, concerned SHO, PS-19 and DSP (East) Palak Goel
2. I intend to seek the copy of my complaints dated 18.04.2023 and 21.04.2023 sent to office, of DSP (east) by Special Secretary (Home) Chandigarh Administration and the copy of statement given by complainant, alleged accused and the comments of Investigation officers namely ASI Naresh, SI Prem, SHO Juldan Singh and DSP (east) Palak Goel.
3. I intend to seek the copy of my complaint having ref no ICMS/2024/006141 and the statement of the complainant and the alleged accused alongwith comments of investigation officer, concerned SHO, PS-19 and DSP (East).
4. I intend to seek the copy of my complaint having ref no ICMS/2024/008958 and the statement of the complainant and the alleged accused alongwith comments of investigation officer, concerned SHO, PS-19 and DSP (East).
5. I intend to seek the copy of my complaint having ref no ICMS/2024/10983 AND ICMS/2024/10985 and the statement of the complainant and the alleged accused alongwith comments of investigation officer, concerned SHO, PS-19, DSP (East) as well as action taken report against Constable/Head constable Parvesh (posted in Beat-20) for withholding the complaint having ICMS/2024/004567 sent by Assistant Estate Officer -II Chandigarh for two months.
6. I intend to seek the details of action taken by SHO, PS-19 or DSP (East) against ASI Naresh for making wrong recommendations made complaints dated 18.04.2023 and Page 2 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837 21.04.2023, after receiving of complaint having ICMS/2024/004567 sent by Assistant Estate Officer -II Chandigarh.
7. I intend to seek the criteria adopted by Neelam Chownki Incharge Sh Satish, SI for withholding the investigation after receiving the complaint having ICMS/2024/004567 on 07.06.2024.
8. I intend to seek the copy of letter written by Neelam Chownki Incharge Sh Satish, Sl to SDO (Building) or Assistant Estate Officer-II Chandigarh for providing the back papers in respect of above said complaint having ICMS/2024/004567 for the purpose of investigation.
9. I intend to seek the copy of letter, if any, written by Neelam Chownki Incharge Sh Satish SI to his seniors for getting opinion of Dy DA (Legal) in respect of above said complaints including complaint having ICMS/2024/004567. +
10. I intend to seek the details and status of my complaint dated 01.04.2024 against DSP (east), SHO PS-19 and ASI Naresh vide ICMS/2024/009990, in which complainants statement dated 29.05.24 was taken.
11. I intend to seek the criteria adopted by SSP/DGP whereby complaint against DSP (east) Palak Goel and others was sent to a junior level inspector Sumer Singh for investigation in PCC
12. I intend to seek the criteria adopted by SSP/DGP whereby complaint against DSP (east) Palak Goel and others was sent to Palak Goel herself for enquiry and she even asked for comments from complainant.
13. I intend to seek the criteria adopted by SSP/DGP/DSP (Central) whereby complaint against DSP (east) Palak Goel and others was sent to a junior level Sub Inspector Satish, Neelam Chownki Incharge
14. I intend to seek the details of asset and liability affidavit filed by Neelam Chownki Incharge Sh Satish, SI while joining his job in Chandigarh police.Page 3 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837
15. I intend to seek the details of asset and liability affidavit filed by Neelam Chownki Incharge Sh Satish, SI in the last financial year.
16. I intend to seek the copy of permissions taken by Neelam Chownki Incharge Sh Satish, SI from Department while purchasing any moveable or immoveable property in his or his family members name.
17. I intend to seek the details of asset and liability affidavit filed by ASI Naresh (former beat incharge -20) while joining his job in Chandigarh police.
18. I intend to seek the details of asset and liability affidavit filed by ASI Naresh(former beat incharge-20) in last financial year.
19 I intend to seek the copy of permissions taken by ASI Naresh(former beat incharge -20) from Department while purchasing any moveable or immoveable property in his or his family members name.
20 I intend to seek the details of asset and liability affidavit filed by Mr Parvesh (posted in Police beat-20) while joining his job in Chandigarh police.
21 I intend to seek the details of asset and liability affidavit filed by Mr Parvesh (posted in Police beat-20) in last financial year.
22 I intend to seek the copy of permissions taken by Mr Parvesh (posted in Police beat-20) from Department while purchasing any moveable or immoveable property in his or his family members name.
23 I intend to seek the details of complaints, if any, received and departmental action, if any, taken against Sub Inspector Satish, Neelam Chownki Incharge during his entire service 24 I intend to seek the details of complaints, if any, received and departmental action, if any, taken against ASI Naresh (former beat incharge -20) during his entire service 25 I intend to seek the status of Action taken by DGP/SSP against Police officials responsible for not registering FIR even after receiving Complaint dated 17.02.2024 Page 4 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837 having ICMS/2024/004567 made by Assistant Estate Officer-II Chandigarh to SSP Chandigarh for registration of FIR against Paramjit Singh for forgery, fabrication and misrepresentation in respect of Revised building plan of House no 589 Sector 20-A Chandigarh (RP 8840).
26 I intend to seek copy of instructions/ standing instructions given by Home secretary/DGP/SSP to DSP (east) whereby reader of DSP (east) is restrained from taking complaints directly from citizens."
2. The CPIO & DSP HQ (Estt.), UT of Chandigarh, replied on 22.07.2024 to points 14-22 of the RTI Application, as under:
"The requisite information is denied being third party information u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.07.2024, stating as under:
"1. That the reply given by CPIO vide No. 128/RTI-24/CPIO/Estt./UT/36563 dated 22/07/2024 to the application dated 27.06.2024 filed by the applicant u/s 6 of RTI Act and received in office of CPIO vide no 616/RTI/CAPIO(PHQ)/UT/PWS DT 28.06.2024 is not proper & complete.
2. That SI Satish, SI, ASI Naresh and Mr Parvesh all have dealt with complaints filed by applicant as well as by Assistant estate Officer-II Chandigarh against forgery, cheating and misrepresentation done by Paramjit R/o 1044 Sector 44-B Chandigarh. All these officers of Chandigarh Policę have tried to delay and close the complaints for their vested interests. The applicant want to expose their misdeeds and thus all this information is required and will be used in larger public interest at large by bring the information to higher officer through competent court of law or other wise.
3. That ASI Naresh And Parvesh has worked under Palak Goel (then DSP East), who has rejected the information now being the concerned CPIO. As the DSP Palak Goel Page 5 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837 was also directly or indirectly involved in the delaying/ closing all those complaints so now she has denied the information on vague grounds. As per Judgement passed by Hon'ble Delhi High court in LPA 501/2009 titled as Secretary General, Supreme court of India vs Subhash, it has been held that "if information is required in larger public interest then release of information would not amount to actionable breach of confidentiality." If the provisions of the Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 are not applicable to information sought of Hon'ble Judges of Supreme court then how CPIO Palak Goel has made it applicable to information sought of a constable, ASI and SI. Moreover the information sought is only about their asset and liability affidavit filed in department and is about the permissions taken by them before purchasing any moveable or immoveable property. It seems that none has been complied with Chandigarh police employees and senior officers and that's why CPIO is trying to diver the issue.."
4. The FAA & Suptd. of Police, (HQs), UT of Chandigarh, vide order dated 05.08.2024, held as under:
"4. The Comments of DSP-cum-CPIO/Establishment were sought vide No D- 580/R/RTI/SP/Hqrs. dated 25.07.2024, who intimated that points no. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 pertains to their office are third party information. Moreover, SI Satish No. 1514/CHG, ASI Naresh No. 1428/CP & HC Parvesh No. 1256/CP had given their written submission that their personal information cannot be disclosed. Hence, the requisite information against these points have been denied vide this office letter no. 128/RTI-24/CPIO/Estt./UT/36563 dated 22.07.2024.
DECISION
5. I have considered the appeal filed by the appellant viz-a-viz comments of CPIO/Establishment. The undersigned is satisfied with the reply/comment of CPIO/Establishment that that the requisite information could not be provided to the applicant being third party information under the prevision of 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, no more action is required in the matter and the appeal is hereby disposed off, accordingly."Page 6 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.08.2024 reiterating the grounds for First Appeal as mentioned above in para 3.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference. On behalf of the Respondent, P Abhinandan, DSP (HQ)-cum-CPIO (Estt.) attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information and relied on the contentions raised in the First Appeal as mentioned in para 3 above.
8. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant on points 14-22 of the RTI Application as stated vide his written submissions dated 03.02.2026, and submitted that the concerned third parties have also dissented to the disclosure of this information. Further, the Commission took on record the written submissions dated 06.02.2026 of the CPIO stating the details of the reply provided/action taken in respect of the other points of the RTI Application as under:
".....RTI application received in this office through I/C Public Window-cum-CAPIQ (PHQ), Chandigarh vide No. 616/RTI/CAPIO(PHQ)/UT/PWS dated 28.06.2024, same was transferred to this office from CPIO East, Sector-26, Chandigarh, from CPIO PCC, Sector-09, Chandigarh regarding complaint nos. PW No. 15885/2021, ICMS/2024/008958, ICMS/2024/010983, ICMS/2024/10985, ICMS/2024/016854 & ICMS/2024/004567, ICMS/2023/011190, ICMS/2023/012822, ICMS/2024/006141.
Accordingly, as per record of Integrated Complaint Management System (ICMS), complaint nos. ICMS/2024/010983, ICMS/2024/10985, ICMS/2024/016854 & ICMS/2024/004567, ICMS/2023/012822, ICMS/2024/006141 transferred to concerned CPIOs and appellant was also apprised (copy enclosed). As per report of I/C HAC Branch ICMS/2023/011190 was transferred to the CPIO O/o The Advisor to the *Administrator- cum-CVO, Chandigarh Administration, Sector-09, Chandigarh (copy enclosed) and complaint nos. ICMS/2024/008958 and PW No. 15885/2021 was consigned with HAC Page 7 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837 Branch. After receiving the same from quarter concerned appellant was informed through telephonically as well as letter no. 395/CPIO/Hqrs/RTI-24, D-627 dated 02.08.2024 to visit the office of undersigned on any working day along . with this letter and collect relevant information/documents, after making the inspection of relevant record, but he did not came to the O/o undersigned (Copy enclosed). The appellant filed a first appeal against the disposal of his RTI application dated 27.05.2024 by CPIO/Hqrs, East & Central with the contentions that requisite information not provided to him. Further, another similar 1"
appeal was received in the FAA office from the office of SP/Establishment vide no D-589- 90/RTI/SP/Hqrs & D-591-92/RTI/SP/Hqs. Dated 05.08.2024 and the same was diarized vide no. 75/UT/RTI/SSP/FAA dated 05.08.2024. In response, first appeal disposed off vide order no. D-267-271/UT/RTI/SSP, & D-272-276/UT/RTI/SSP dated 04.09.2024 with remarks that CPIO/Hqrs. has already requested the appellant telephonically as well as through letter to collect the requisite information from the office of the CPIO, but he did not turn up till date to collect the information."
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the instant Second Appeal has been filed in respect of the information sought vide points 14-22 of the RTI Application and the reply provided by the CPIO in this regard is as per the provisions of the RTI Act, being the personal records of third parties. Further, the arguments of the Appellant as noted from the grounds for First and Second Appeal do not bear any merit in view of the established judicial precedents in this regard. Here, it will be relevant to refer to the Apex Court's Constitution Bench judgment, in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, wherein the facets of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act have been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, as under:
Page 8 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy...... This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied
10. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter.
11. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
SD (Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 13.03.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (बिजेंद्र कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 9 of 9 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/126837 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)