Central Information Commission
Navjot Lehal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 1 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/603143
Navjot Lehal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of RCS,
IAF Heritage Building,
Sector 18-A,
Chandigarh-160018 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2025
Date of Decision : 31.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.05.2023
PIO replied on : 09.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 19.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(a) Certified copy of ALL Complaints against Krishan Kumar Insp. RCS from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2023.
(b) Certified copy of ALL Complaints against Pardeep Kumar Insp. (Audit).
RCS from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2023.
Page 1 of 10(c) I be informed Provision of Law under which ACTION is taken against delinquent/corrupt officials of RCS office who are not following law/ orders of seniors/ not adhering to the stipulated time frames.
(d) I be informed Provision of Law wherein MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT is prescribed for delinquent officials of RCS office who are not following law /orders of seniors/ not adhering to the stipulated time frames.
(e) Act/ Order/ Notification etc. whereby criminal acts ("Public Servant concealing design to commit offence, which is his duty to prevent and for disobeying directions of Law.") of delinquent/corrupt RCS officials are defended by Law officers of UT Chd.
(f) Election proceeding book minutes dated 22.09.2014 of The Ajanta Coop. H/B (1st) Society Ltd. wherein Krishan Kumar Insp. RCS decided then and there and RULE-OUT objections made under section 26(B)(2) of said 1961 Act under plea that "section 26(B)(2) of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961 is not applicable in UT Chd, as in UT Chd. The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961 unamended is applicable in UT Chd."
(g) Act/ Order/ Notification etc. of Sect. Cooperation, RCS OR Joint. RCS specifically stating 'UNAMENDED' 1961 Act is applicable in Chd, which from Legal basis of aforementioned decision of RCS presiding officials.
(h) Legal Opinion/ Clarification sought/ obtained (PRIOR to above said decision dated 22.09.2014) from Law Department of UT Chd.
(i) I be also informed NAME and DESIGNATION of all officials appointed by RCS to preside over elections on 22.09.2014 as above.
(j) Act/ Order/ Notification etc. whereby Krishan Kumar Insp. RCS is AUTHORIZED to decide and RULE-OUT objections made u/s 26(B)(2) of Punjab Co-operative Societies Act.
(k) Law Book/ Act etc. wherein it's mentioned that 'UNAMENDED' Punjab Co-operative Societies Act 1961 is applicable in Chandigarh.
(l) I be also informed about LIABILITY of damages is on whom, Wherein RCS presiding officials willfully deliberately VIOLATED Section 26 (B) (2) of said Act, to allow fraudsters to continue and hold charge of society, despite they being barred under said Act.
Page 2 of 10(m) Act/ Order/ Notification etc. whereby managing committee of The Ajanta Coop. H/B (1st) Society Ltd. is empowered to Not-Comply Do-Not- Adhere/ with Standing Order dated 23.04.2004 of RCS, whereby "all Coop. H/B societies have been directed to charge interest @ 12% p.a. for the dues to be paid by defaulting members", WITHOUT challenging same in higher Court. "
2. The PIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.06.2023 stating as under:
"(a), (b): Information cannot be supplied as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005.
(c), (d), (e): Information is not specific.
(F): Available on Page-03.
(g),(h): No such record is available.
(i): Copy of approved election programme on 22.09.2014 of the Ajanta Coop. H/B Ist Society Ltd., Chd-Available-01 page.
(J): Please specify the information given by Krishan Kumar.
(k): No such information is available as per office record.
(l): Please specify the information.
(m): There is no such order."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.10.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Ms. Madhu Verma, Sr. Assistant/PIO appeared through video conference.Page 3 of 10
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the Respondent was incomplete and not satisfactory. She requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the information.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 18.07.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and provided revised reply. The contents of the written submissions are reproduced as under:
The reply given by this department with regard to application filed by the applicant dated 18/05/2023 is as under:-
S.No. Contents Reply
n) Certified copy of all complaints Applicant had already been informed
against Krishan Kumar vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI-
Inspector RCS from 01.04.2018 Ajanta/ 2023/2848 dated 09/06/23.
to 31.03.2023. (Flag 'A')
o) Certified copy of all complaints Applicant had already been informed
against Pardeep Kumar vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI-
Inspector (Audit) RCS from Ajanta/2023/2848 dated 09/06/23.
01.04.18 to 31.03.23. (Flag 'A')
p) I be informed provision of law Applicant had already been informed
under which action is taken vide this office memo No. 2848
against delinquent / corrupt Coop/HB-RTI-Ajanta/2023/dated
officials of RCS office who are 09/06/23 (Flag 'A') and revised reply
not following law/orders of already informed vide this office memo
seniors / not adhering to the Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 No. dated
stipulated time frames. 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had
filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First
Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023.
q) I be informed provision of law Applicant had already been informed
wherein maximum vide this office memo No. 2848
punishment is prescribed for Coop/HB-RTI-Ajanta/2023/dated
delinquent officials of RCS 09/06/23 (Flag 'A') and revised reply
office who are not following already informed vide this office memo
law orders of seniors / not Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 No. dated
adhering to the stipulated time 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had frames. filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023.Page 4 of 10
r) Act order / notification etc Applicant had already been informed whereby criminal acts (Public vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI-
Servant concealing design to Ajanta/2023/2848 dated 09/06/23 commit offence, which is his (Flag 'A') and revised reply already duty to prevent and for informed vide this office memo No. disobeying directions of Law of Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 dated delinquent /corrupt RCS 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had officials are defended by Law filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First Officers of UT Chandigarh. Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023.
s) Election proceeding book Applicant had already been informed minutes dated 22.09.2014 of vide this office memo No. 2848 the Ajanta Coop H/B 1st Coop/HB-RTI-Ajanta/2023/dated Society Ltd wherein Krishan 09/06/23 (Flag 'A') and demanding Kumar Inspector RCS decided information supplied to her after then and there are Rule out depositing requisite fee vide this office objections made under section memo No. Coop/HB-RTI- 26(B) (2) of said 1961 Act Ajanta/2023/3168 dated 22/06/23.
under plea that section 26(B) (Flag 'C') (2) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 is not applicable in UT Chandigarh as in UT Chandigarh The Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 unamended is applicable in UT Chandigarh." t) Act Order/ Notification etc of Applicant had already been informed Sec Cooperation RCS OR Joint vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI- RCS specifically stating Ajanta/2023/ 2848 dated 09/06/23 'unamended' 1961 Act is (Flag 'A') and revised reply already applicable in Chandigarh which informed vide this office memo from Legal basis of Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 No. dated aforementioned decision of 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had RCS presiding officials. filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023. u) Legal Opinion / clarification Applicant had already been informed sought /obtained (prior to vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI- above said decision dated Ajanta/2023/ 2848 dated 09/06/23 22.09.2014) from Low (Flag 'A') and revised reply already Department of UT Chandigarh. informed vide this office memo Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 No. dated 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had Page 5 of 10 filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023. v) I be also informed Name and Applicant had already been informed Designation of all officials vide this office memo No. 2848 appointed by RCS to preside Coop/HB-RTI-Ajanta/2023/dated over elections on 22.09.14 as 09/06/23 (Flag 'A') and demanding above. information supplied to her after depositing requisite fee vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI- Ajanta/2023/3168 dated 22/06/23. (Flag 'C') w) Act / Order / Notification etc Applicant had already been. informed whereby Krishan Kumar vide this office memo No. 2848 Inspector RCS is authorised to Coop/HB-RTI-Ajanta/2023/dated decide and Rule out objections 09/06/23 (Flag 'A') and revised reply made under section 26(B) (2) already informed vide this office memo of Punjab Cooperative Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 No. dated Societies Act. 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023. x) Law Book Act etc wherein it is Applicant had already been informed mentioned that 'unamended vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI- Punjab Cooperative Societies Ajanta/2023/ 2848 dated 09/06/23 Act 1961 is applicable in (Flag 'A') and revised reply already Chandigarh. informed vide this office memo Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 No. dated 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023. y) I be also informed about Applicant had already been informed liability of damages is on vide this office memo No. 2848 whom, wherein RCS presiding Coop/HB-RTI-Ajanta/2023/dated
officials wilfully deliberately 09/06/23 (Flag 'A') and revised reply violated section 26(B) (2) of already informed vide this office memo said Act to allow fraudsters to Coop/HB/RTI/2023/3443 No. dated continue and hold charge of 13/07/23 (Flag 'B') as applicant had society despite they being filed appeal No. 32/2023 before First barred under said Act. Appellate Authority on 19/06/2023. z) Act/ Order / Notification etc Applicant had already been informed whereby managing committee vide this office memo No. Coop/HB-RTI- of the Ajanta Coop H/B 1 Ajanta/2023/2848 dated 09/06/23.
Society Ltd Is empowered to (Flag 'A') Page 6 of 10 not comply do not adhere / with standing order dated 23.04.04 of RCS whereby 'all Coop H/B Societies have been directed to charge interest 12% p.a. for the dues to be paid by defaulting members".
without challenging same in higher court.
In this connection, it is submitted that the applicant not satisfy with the reply of the CPIO and she had filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh on 19.06.2023 i.e. Appeal No. 32/2023 and the First Appellate Authority had passed the following order on 12/10/2023 (Flag 'Y'):-
".....The information sought by the applicant is unconnected as the complaints are regarding service matters and the same are to be dealt as per service rules and there is no public interest of the applicant.
The undersigned is satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO with regard to point No. 4 (a) and (b) as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence the information is denied to the applicant and appeal is dismissed as the appellant has failed to justify the public interest involved in seeking this information.
If the applicant is not satisfied with the above decision, she can file for 2nd Appeal before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067."
Further S/Sh. Krishan Kumar, Inspector Grade-l (General) & Pardeep Kumar, Inspector Grade-l (Audit) submitted their detailed reply before the First Appellate Authority, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh on 14/07/23 (Flag 'D').
It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10044/2010 titled as Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal vide its order dated 13/11/2019 (para 59 page 67) has defined "personal information" under RTI Act 2005. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as below:-
"Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental Page 7 of 10 and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation report, ACRS, disciplinary proceedings etc are all personal information. Medical record, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, finding recorded, including that of family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, pending and borrowing etc are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. The list is indicative and no enhaustive."
13.11.2019 Sd/- CJI Rajan Gogoi N.V. Ramana Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud Deepak Gupta Sanjiv Khanna Further. Ministry of Personnel. Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training vide letter dated 14/08/2013 (Flag 'E') has issued office memorandum which is reproduced as under:-
"2...... The performance of an employee / officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual." The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest."
Further Central Information Commission vide decision dated 28/02/2023 (Flag 'F') titled as Mr. Patwant Singh Riar Vs. CPIO, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, UT. Chandigarh in Second Appeal CIC/UTOCH/A/2022/132299-UM passed the following order:-No. "...Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and on the perusal of the documents on record, the Commission observes that the Respondent should be more careful in future as the information pertaining to the third parties and the unconnected information should not be provided as per Section 8 of the Page 8 of 10 RTI Act 2005. Further Commission notes that no intervention is required in the said matter."
Further it is also brought to your notice that the applicant is a habitual complainant as she files various RTI application(s) before various authorities.
PRAYER:-
It is respectfully prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be dismissed.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the CPIO had furnished a point-wise reply on 09.06.2023, and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.10.2023 had upheld the same. With respect to points (a) and (b) of the RTI application, the Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO and FAA that the information sought relates to service matters of third parties and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant.
For the remaining points, the Commission notes that the CPIO has either provided the information as available in the records or informed the Appellant that the requested information is not available or is not specific. The Commission also observes that the Appellant has failed to establish any mala fide intention on the part of the Respondent or any deliberate denial of information.
8. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds the replies given by the Respondents are adequate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no intervention is warranted in this matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Page 9 of 10 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of RCS, IAF Heritage Building, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh-160018 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)