Central Information Commission
Sita Ram Tanwar vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 5 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIGDE/A/2024/136575
Sita Ram Tanwar ......Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO,
Defense State Office, Delhi
Circle, Delhi Cantt.-110010
Date of Hearing : 24.02.2026
Date of Decision : 05.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 05.07.2024
First appeal filed on : 30.07.2024 (received on 16.08.2024)
First Appellate Authority's : Nil
order
Second Appeal dated : 18.11.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.05.2024 seeking the following information:
i)To provide a certificate copy of action taken report of our letter no CBNRVS118 dated 18.07.2022. Copy Enclosed for your reference.
2. On dated 31.05.2024 RTI application dated 28.05.2024 transferred by US/Coord/CPIO, Dept. Of Defence to CPIO, D(Q&C), Dept. Of Defence.
On 13.06.2024 CPIO, D(Q&C) transferred the RTI application to CPIO, D(Lands),MOD.
On 21.06.2024 CPIO, D(Lands) transferred the RTI application to CPIO, DGDE.
On 27.06.2024 CPIO, D (Lands), MOD transferred the RTI application dated 28.05.2024 to CPIO, Defence Estate Office, MOD.
3. CPIO, Defence Estates Office, furnished a reply to the appellant on dated 05.07.2024 stated as under: -
"As per Section 12 of Delhi Development Act, 1957, declaration or de-notification of any area as "Development area" under Delhi Development Act, 1957 does not in any manner alter the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment. The territorial limits of Cantonment can only be altered by the Central Govt. only under Section 4 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. The Gazette notification being referred to is issued for an entirely different purpose under Delhi Development Act, 1957. The said notification does not affect the territorial jurisdiction of the Cantonment. Therefore, 27.646 acres of village Naraina continue to remain in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment.
(ii) It is also pertinent to mention here that one resident of CB Naraina namely Sh. Praveen Kumar inter-alia challenged the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment Board over his property bearing No.CB-97 & 97 A situated in CB Naraina, Delhi Cantt. in Writ Petition No. 723/2020 titled as Praveen Kumar Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board. Wherein Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Union of India submitted the Map of village Page 2 of 6 Naraina along with various Gazette notification thus establishing the village fall within territorial limits of Delhi Cantonment. In view of the documents placed the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Sh. Praveen Kumar unconditionally accepted the jurisdiction of Delhi Cantonment Board over the property in question and ultimately Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed Petitioner to withdraw his special Leave Petition.
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed First Appeal dated 30.07.2024 (received on 16.08.2024). FAA, Director, (Lands), MOD vide letter dated Nil stated as under:
"1. The Appellant has filed First appeal for not providing the requisite information by the CPIO, D(Lands) in response to his RTI application dated 16.05.2024. The Order under section 19 is based on the query of the Appellant, reply of the CPIO and facts of the casc.
2. As reported by CPIO, the RTI application was transferred to DGDE under section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 on 21.06.2024 (copy enclosed). Hence, the appeal lics with the concerned appellate Authority is DGDE. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed off."
On 27.08.2024 First Appeal was transferred by US/ Coord./ CPIO to CPIO, Dir (Land), Dept. Of Defence stating as under:
"First Appeal dated 16.08.24 of Shri Sita Ram Tanwar is transferred as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to FAA, D(Q&C) for necessary action as the information sought by the applicant appears to be closely related to them.
In case it does not pertain to D(Q&C), the same may be forwarded to the concerned CPIO/Public Authority under intimation to the applicant and not returned to the RTI Cell."
No order by FAA, D(Q&C) is found on record.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Not Present Respondent: Mr. Vinod Sharma, Defence Estate Officer, Delhi Circle
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
Page 3 of 67. The Appellant is not present despite the service of notice of hearing.
8. Written submissions dated 23.02.2026 filed by the appellant is taken on record which states that he is suffering with COPD, therefore, he is not able to attend the hearing and in view of the same he has requested to adjourn the matter. Along with written submissions prescriptions receipts are found enclosed.
9. The respondent CPIO, Defence Estates Office while defending their case inter alia submitted that reply has been provided on 05.07.2024 and appellant is habitual in filing RTI applications on similar issues.
10.Written submissions dated 17.02.2026 filed by respondent CPIO, Defence Estates Office is taken on record which states that appellant is habitual in filing RTI applications on the same subject. It is also stated that Commission in an earlier case no. CIC/DIGDE/A/2023/104941 had observed that Appellant files repetitive RTI applications seeking same information. It is also stated that the information sought in RTI applications dated 29.06.2021 and 17.10.2022 pertains to an old and concluded case, which has been already addressed through earlier RTI applications and physical inspection and supply of records.
Decision:
11.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties present and perusal of the records and written submissions and previous orders of the Commission, notes that the appellant had earlier filed an RTI Application dated 17.10.2022 seeking similar information on the same subject matter. The Commission further notes that the appellant has again filed the present RTI Application dated 28.05.2024 seeking information, which is identical to the information sought by him in earlier RTI application dated 17.10.2022 which was decided by the Commission vide order no. CIC/DIGDE/A/2023/104941 dated 30.01.2026. The Commission observes that the filing of repetitive RTI applications, seeking same information which has already been supplied, does not advance the object of RTI Act, 2005.
In this context, the Commission places reliance on its earlier decision in CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014, wherein it was observed that:
Page 4 of 6"Once information is given, applicant shall not seek the same once again in the guise of different form or language... Repeated RTI applications will amount to clogging the office of public authority and the CPIO would be justified in refusing the same with intimation of reasons."
The Commission considered the request made by the appellant for adjournment. However, upon perusal of the facts of the case placed on record, it was not agreed, since the earlier appeal filed by the appellant on the same subject had already been decided by the Commission.
The Commission also notes that the respondent CPIO has not forwarded his written submissions dated 17.02.2026 to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent CPIO is directed to furnish a copy of the written submission dated 17.02.2026 to the appellant, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With the above observations and directions, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the instant matter.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
SD/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (संजीव कुमार िजं दल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 05.03.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Col. Prabhat Kumar Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the Parties:
1. CPIO Defense State Office, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt.-110010
2. Sh. Sita Ram Tanwar Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)