Central Information Commission
Ratan Kumar Pandey vs Indian Army on 16 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2024/104260
Ratan Kumar Pandey .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
E-in-C's Branch, Kashmir House,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110011 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2025
Date of Decision : 15.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 22.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 16.10.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 29.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"I, Ratan Kumar Pandey made complaint of Mr. Chao Bhartiya to Hon'ble Rajnath Singh on 16 Dec 2022 & ON 28 JAN 23 FOR CORRUPTION BY WAY OF DEMANDING BRIBE OF RS4LAKHS ELSEWISE DEDUCTION OF RS 8 LAKHS Page 1 of 5 Dir[D&V]Sh/l A.K. Shukla asked the confirmation vide letter dated 17Jan 2023 No 78657/GEN/2023/CC/E1D[VolXX1] Which was confirmed by me on 15/02/23 and 21/3/23 Dir[D&V] Mr.A.K.Vij asked the confirmation for complaint dated 28Jan 23 vide letter dated 13April No 78657/GEN/22823/ADG/EID Which was confirmed by me on 28/04/2023 INFORMATION SOUGHT-
1.Kindly inform whether any action/inquiry is conducted in the complaint cases as no body contacted me after confirmation, along with the name of INQUIRY OFFICER.
2.Kindly inform whether these complaint cases too have been thrown in the basket un action for our further necessary perusal action."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.09.2023 stating as under:
"1. In this regard, the custodian of information has intimated that a One Man Inquiry (OMI) was ordered by CE Lucknow Zone for investigating the allegations made by the complainant. The OMI report has been forwarded to Mod/d(Vig-MES&BRO) vide their letter No. 78657/4124/2022/CC/E1D dt 11 May 2023.
2. This disposes off your above applications as per RTI Act."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.10.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.12.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. A written submission dated 14.05.2025 (copy marked to the Appellant) has been filed by the Respondent which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...2. It is stated that a number of complaint with similar nature were received in this sub-dte from the RTI applicant Sh. Ratan Kumar Pandey. The following is submitted with respect to action taken on the complaint of the RTI applicant dated 16 Dec 2022 and 28 Jan 2023:-
The individual has made a complaint dated 22 Feb 2021 content of which is similar to that of complaint dated 16 Dec 2022. The custodian of Page 2 of 5 information intimated CPIO that a One Man Inquiry (OMI) was ordered by CE Lucknow Zone for investigation of the allegations made by the complainant. The OMI report was forwarded to MoD/D(Vig.- MES&BRO) vide letter NO. 78657/4124/2022/CC/E1D dated 11 May 2023.
The individual has made a complaint dated 28 Jan 2023 having similar content to a complaint dated 28 Aug 2022. The complaint dated 28 Aug 2022 was got investigated through a Technical Board of Officers (TBO) by ADG(P) Chennai. The report of TBO was forwarded to MoD/D(Vig.- MES&BRO) vide letter No. 78657/4175/2023/CC/E1D dated 19 Oct 2023."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through videoconference. Respondent: Shri Amit Ranjan, Director (D&V)/CPIO present in person.
6. The Appellant contended that final outcome of the One-Man Inquiry on his subject complaint is yet to be provided by the Respondent. Hence, this Second Appeal.
7. The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 22.09.2023, they have provided the reply/information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Now at the stage of the second appeal, they have provided updated reply to the Appellant vide written submission dated 14.05.2025 by informing the action taken on his complaint.
Decision:
8. The Commission based on perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the Respondent is bereft of merit as the queries raised by the Appellant in this RTI Application with the PREFIX "Whether" do not qualify the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
9. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 510.In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
11.Despite this, the reply and as sequel to it further clarification tendered by the Respondent through his written submission to assist the Appellant is in the spirit of the RTI Act. The Appellant has tried to modify his query during hearing by asking for final action taken report on his complaint, which is an extended relief claimed because it was not the part of his original RTI application. Hence, no relief can be granted in the matter.
12.The Appellant is at liberty to file fresh RTI application for seeking the outcome of his complaint.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, E-in-C's Branch, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg New Delhi - 110011 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)