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/2024/602036
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 : 17.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.08.2023
First appeal filed on : 22.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
" I be INFORMED the following:
(a) Time Period (i.e Start and End Date) wherein Krishan Kumar worked as DAILY WAGER in RCS Deptt.Page 1 of 9
(b) Time Period (i.e. Start and End Date) wherein Krishan Kumar worked as POEN in RCS Deptt.
(c) Time Period (i.e Start and End Date) wherein Krishan Kumar worked as CLERK in RCS Deptt.
(d) Time Period (i.e Start and End Date) wherein Krishan Kumar worked as ASSISTANT in RCS Deptt.
(e) Time Period (i.e Start and End Date) wherein Krishan Kumar worked as Sub-Inspector/ Inspector Grade-II in RCS Deptt.
'Punjab Reorganization (Chandigarh) (Adaptation of Laws on State and Concurrent Subjects) Order 1968' DULY NOTIFIED vide Gazette Notification dated Nov 21, 1968 (KRTK 30, 1890 SAKA) wherein under CLAUSE no. 3 its CLEARLY STIPULATED that ALL Amendments made by OTHER Competent Authority will have EFFECT in union territory of Chandigarh I Be Supplied CERTIFIED COPIES of Following Documents:
(f) Gazette Notification whereby UT Chandigarh NOTIFIED that Punjab legislative/ Punjab Govt. is excluded (NOT covered) under the "OTHER"
Competent Authority' as stipulated vide said Order 1968
(g) Gazette Notification whereby central Govt. NOTIFIED that Punjab legislative/ Punjab Govt. is excluded (NOT covered) under the "OTHER" Competent Authority' as stipulated vide said 1968 Order
(h) Act/Order/ Notification whereby Punjab legislative/ Punjab Govt. is excluded (NOT covered) under the "OTHER" Competent Authority' as stipulated vide said 1968 Order On 22.09.2014 in elections of Ajanta Society Krishan Kumar presiding officer declared that 'UNAMENDED' 1961 Act is applicable in Chd, and out-rightly rejected the Amendments by Other Competent Authority, as NOT applicable in UT Chandigarh. which is arbitrary unconstitutional as clause no. 3 of the duly NOTIFIED 1968 Order CLEARLY STIPULATED that ALL Amendments made by OTHER Competent Authority will have EFFECT in UT of Chandigarh I Be Supplied CERTIFIED COPIES of Following Documents:
Page 2 of 9(i) Act/Order/ Notification wherefrom Krishan Kumar Insp.RCS gain extra martial powers, acquire jurisdiction authority to DISOBEY and VIOLATE said 1968 Order
(j) Law Book/ Act relied upon by Krishan Kumar to declare on 22.09.2014 that 'UNAMENDED' 1961 Act is applicable in Chd
(k) Legal Opinion/ Clarification relied upon by Krishan Kumar to declare on 22.09.2014 that 'UNAMENDED' 1961 Act is applicable in Chd.
(l) ORDER of Sect. Cooperation, RCS and Joint.RCS relied upon by Krishan Kumar to declare on 22.09.2014 that 'UNAMENDED' 1961 Act is applicable in Chd.
In-Breach, In Non-Compliance, Non-Adherence to clause no. 3 of said 1968 Order; Krishan Kumar presiding officer CURBED and INFRINGED upon Democratic Rights of genuine eligible members and Krishan Kumar committed heinous criminal offences by making Barred, Ineligible, Disqualified members as office bearers of Ajanta Society on 22.09.2014
(m) TERMINATION ORDER of Krishan Kumar issued by Registrar, as RCS, is FULLY ALIVE vide complaint no. 823070 dated 22.02.2023 that accused Krishan Kumar committed heinous criminal offences.
(n) TERMINATION ORDER of Krishan Kumar issued by Joint.RCS, as JRCS Rohit Gupta is FULLY ALIVE vide numerous complaints 813505 dated 15.02.2023, 823070 dated 22.02.2023, dated 06.03.2023 and 862539 dated 23.03.2023 that accused Krishan Kumar committed heinous criminal offences."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 09.08.2023 stating as under:
"(a) Office sought consent from Sh. Krishan, Inspector Grade-l(G) and the official requested not to supply any information relating to him to the applicant under RTI Act as per guidelines issued by the GOI, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Deptt of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, as per Section 8 of RTI Act, as per order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 27/34/2012 (Girish Ramchandra Despande Vs. CPIO and others) dated 03.10.12, Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10044/2010 (CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal) order dated 13.11.19, Hon'ble Information Page 3 of 9 Commissioner, New Delhi in 2nd Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2022/132399-UM decision dated 28.02.23.
(b) -do-
(c) -do-
(d) -do-
(e) -do-
(f) Specify particulars of the information sought by you U/S 6(b) of the RTI Act 2005.
(g) As per point no. (f)
(h) As per point no. (f)
(i) Sh. Krishan Kumar, Inspector Grade-I(G) performed duties as per Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 (as applicable to UT Chandigarh).
However. notification dated: 1968 has already been discussed in other Appeal Case.
(j) As per point no. (i)
(k) As per point no. (i)
(l) As per point no. (i)
(m) There is no such order in this regard.
(n) There is no such order in this regard."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.09.2023, held as under:
"CPIO, O/o Registrar Cooperative Societies and Appellant were present.
Heard today. The reply of the CPIO is not specific. Clear reply be given on the information sought by the appellant within ten days. Accordingly, appeal is disposed off."Page 4 of 9
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.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the Respondent Authority. She pleaded that in compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO provided the same reply once again which was given earlier.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the FAA's order, the PIO vide letter dated 14.09.2023 provided revised point-wise reply to the Appellant, contents of the same are reproduced as under:
Sr. Contents Reply
No.
(a) Date of joining of The office sought consent of 3rd party
Pradeep Kumar in RCS as per Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005
Deptt. and the 3rd party i.e. Sh. Pardeep
Kumar. Inspector Grade-I (A) vide
dated 02.08.2023 has replied not to supply any information relating to him on point No. 4 (1 to d). Further the information cannot be supplied as per Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Guidelines dated 05.10.2009 and keeping in view the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. V/S Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others passed in Civil Appeal No.6564 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011, SPL (C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03.10.2012, SLPC No. 10044 of 2010 titled as Central Board of Page 5 of 9 Secondary Education & Anr V/S Subash Chandra Agarwal dated 13.11.2019 vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defied "Personnel Information". Such information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. Hence the information cannot be supplied.
(b) Age of joining of Pradeep As per point (a).
Kumar in RCS Deptt.
(c) Maximum permissible As per point (a).
age of joining as per law in RCS Deptt.
(d) Act/order/notification As per point (a).
whereby over aged Pradeep Kumar can join in RCS Deptt.
(e) Extension sought by RCS No need to seek extension from RCS as to pass well-reasoned the powers of RCS has been delegated speaking order after in to JRCS by the Administration. stipulation time period expired.
(f) extension Order granting As per point (e) exemption by competent authority to RCS to exceed/go beyond the stipulated time by twenty months.
(g) ACT order / notification The matter was sub judice in nature etc whereby Pardeep and the official apprising authority Kumar Insp (A), RCS has accordingly time to time. power and authority to violate JRCS order date 21.04.23. wherein in noncompliance breach, and in non- adherence, Pardeep Kumar has not given clear cut findings on each issue (i.e. All issues also duly Page 6 of 9 mentioned in summary chart by petitioners) till date and thereby Pardeep Kumar causing inordinate delay in the matter.
(h) Act Order/ Notification Being the sub judice matter, the officer whereby Pardeep Kumar directed the said official to check the Insp (A) RCS has power calculations as prepared by the society. and authority to violate The matter was sub judice in nature standing order dt and the official apprised the authority 23.04.04 as his time to time.
calculation sheet vide
memo No. 275 dated
26.07.22 is in breach in
non compliance and non
adherence to said
standing order.
(i) Date of Joining of Chandigarh Housing Board has allotted
additional member in land to 150 members, but due to
said Ajanta society as typographical mistake, it has been
stated in Memo No. 239 mentioned one extra.
dated 06.03.23 by
Pardeep Kumar that 151
allottee members and
same is also stated by
Saroj Khillan in PUC
dated 21.02.23, whereas
in land allotment letter
No. CAS-SOI-2KI/1231
dated 24/01/22 there
are 150 members only.
(j) Complete details of As per point (i)
additional (151 1st)
member in Ajanta
society.
(k) Memo vide which As per point (i)
Registrar approved
Agenda item regarding
approval for joining of
additional (151 1st)
Page 7 of 9
member in Ajanta
society.
(l) GBM resolution prior to As per point (i) said joining of additional (151 1st) member in Ajanta society.
(m) Order of RCS approving As per point (i) joining of additional (151 1st) member in Ajanta society.
(n) Letter/Memo vide which As per point (i) intimation was given to undersigned of aforesaid.
(o) Letter Memo vide which As per point (i) consent of aforesaid sought from undersigned being original bona fide member.
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 Appellant sought various service details of a government official (Sh. Krishan Kumar) and certified copies of notifications, gazette orders, and legal documents related to the applicability of laws in Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The Respondent has provided point-wise replies to the Appellant vide letters dated 09.08.2023 and 14.09.2023.
8. Regarding Points (a) to (e) of the RTI application, it is noted that these queries relate to the service history of a third-party government official. As per the settled law laid down in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra), personal information such as service records, unless justified by larger public interest, is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the concerned official has explicitly refused consent for disclosure. In absence of overriding public interest, the exemption claimed is valid.
Page 8 of 99. As regards Points (f) to (n), the Commission notes that most of these points pertain to specific legal or official notifications, orders or actions, which either were too vaguely described to enable identification of records, hence, the PIO categorically stated that such orders do not exist on file. The RTI Act does not cast an obligation on the PIO to create information, interpret statutes, or answer hypothetical/legal questions. The PIO is only required to furnish information "as held" and "as available" on record. The FAA's direction to issue a clearer response was duly complied with by the PIO on 14.09.2023. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is not sustained. It is also pertinent to note that the RTI mechanism is not a platform for redressal of grievances or adjudication of the legality of administrative or quasi-judicial decisions taken in the past. For such claims, the appropriate forum lies outside the purview of the RTI Act and the Commission.
10. In view of the above, the Commission is satisfied that the PIO has responded to the RTI application within the framework of the RTI Act and no further relief is warranted in the present appeal.
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 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of RCS, IAF Heritage Building, Sector 18 - A, Chandigarh - 160018 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)