Central Information Commission
Ashok Khemka vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 17 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608
Ashok Khemka ... ि तीय अपील कता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Dy. Supdt. Of Police, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Chandigarh
Date of Hearing : 27.01.2026
Date of Decision : 16.02.2026
Chief Information Commissioner : Raj Kumar Goyal
Relevant dates:
RTI application filed on : 22.04.2024
PIO replied on : 18.05.2024
First Appeal filed on : 20.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 18.06.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint : 25.06.2024
received on
Information soughtand background of the case:
1. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.04.2024 before the PIO, UT Chandigarh- Police, seeking the following information:
"1. Name and address of the man who had booked the offending letter in the Sector 17 GPO Chandigarh and whose CCTV photo was enclosed with the complaint.
2. All notings, documents, correspondences and case diary entries generated during the investigation of the FIR.
3. Follow-up action on my letter no. ACS/P&S/2024/46 dated 11.03.2024 to Ms. Kanwardeep Kaur, SSP, UT Chandigarh."
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The CPIO, Central Sub Division, Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Chandigarh sent an online response dated 18.05.2024 based on information received from SHO/PS-3, Chandigarh, stating as under:
Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Page 1 of 7 "1. Case FIR No.76 dated 23.07.2022 U/s 419, 407, 120B IPC, PS-03, Chandigarh is under Investigation and at this stage, the requisite information cannot be supplied to the applicant u/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act 2005.
2. Case FIR No.76 dated 23.07.2022 U/s 419, 407, 120B IPC, PS-03, Chandigarh is under investigation and at this stage, the requisite information cannot be supplied to the applicant u/s 8(1) (h) of RTI Act 2005.
3. In this connection, a complaint no. ICMS/2024/006735 dated 11.03.2024 has been registered and the copy of said letter has been attached with case file (FIR No.76).."
[reproduced verbatim]
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2024 before the UT Chandigarh- - Police on the ground that the CPIO has not explained as to how the information sought would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. He has accordingly claimed that reliance placed by the PIO on clause (h) of section 8 (1) is not sustainable referring to four landmark decisions, viz. i) UOI vs. Manjit Singh Bali, 2018 SCC Online Del 10394; ii) Director of Income Tax(Investigation) and Ors. Vs. Bhagat Singh & Ors. MANU/DE/9178/2007; iii) Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. (2008) 100DRJ 63 and iv) B S Mathur vs. PIO of Delhi High Court (2011)125 DRJ 508. The FAA/SSP, Chandigarh disposed of the First Appeal vide order dated 18.06.2024 upholding the PIO's reply stating that the FIR & complaint are still under enquiry/investigation.
4. Dissatisfied with the FAA's order, the aggrieved Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: SI Lakhwinder Singh was present through video conference.
6. The Respondent placed reliance on the written submission/counter statement dated 21.01.2026 sent by the CPIO-cum-Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Central Division, Chandigarh wherein apart from reiterating the above facts, the CPIO has further stated as under:
"Now, regarding 2nd appeal the comment has also been from SHO/PS-03, Chandigarh. As per report, it is respectfully submitted that FIR No.76 dated 23.07.2022 under Sections 419,507,120-B IPC, Police Station Sector-3 Chandigarh, was registered after a detailed enquiry and after obtaining legal opinion from DDA (Legal) on the complaint of Sh. Ashok Khemka, IAS, Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana Science & Technology and Fisheries Department Room No. 403, New Haryana Secretariat, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Page 2 of 7 During further investigation, sincere efforts were made to trace the unknown accused who had posted the alleged letter at the Post Office Sector-17 Chandigarh, however, no clue could be found. As the case had become very old and no fruitful result was forthcoming, it was found that there was no justification to keep the case pending. Accordingly, after obtaining prior permission from the senior officers to send the case as Untrace, and Untrace report was prepared on 30.12.2024. Subsequently, on 09.05.2025, the Untrace report was accepted by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Sachin Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.(copy enclosed as 'Annexure - F') It is pertinent to mentioned here that, during the RTI Application the case was under investigation due to this the requisite Information could not be provided at that time. Now on 09.05.2025, the Untrace report was accepted by the Hon'ble Court. Moreover, if in future any clue about the culprits comes to light the case will be re- opened and re-investigated accordingly."
[reproduced verbatim]
7. It is noted that the Annexure F, is not the "the Untrace report accepted by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Sachin Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh dated 09.05.2025" as claimed by Shri Dalbir Singh, CPS, CPIO-cum-Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Central Division, Chandigarh in the written submission. It is in fact a 'Reply of Notice of hearing for appeal/complaint' dated 21.01.2026 from the Insp/SHO, PS-03, Chandigarh.
8. The Appellant has sent a rejoinder dated 23.01.2026 to the aforementioned reply dated 21.01.2026 sent by the Respondent, wherein he has stated as under:
"1. The averment by the CPIO in the reply that an Untrace Report was accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh on 09.05.2025 is factually incorrect and false.
2. The Untrace Report submitted by the Chandigarh Police was rejected by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, U.T. Chandigarh vide an Order dated 17.10.2025. The file was sent back to the Investigating Officer for further investigation and to submit final investigation report at the earliest. The I.O. admitted before the Court that no effort was made to identify the accused by circulating the photo/video of the accused which was attached with the complaint. The Court made a specific direction to the Chandigarh Police to circulate the photograph of the accused to all police stations within the jurisdiction of Haryana and Chandigarh.
A copy of the Order dated 17.10.2025 of Sachin Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh in Case No. UCR 229/2025, "State Through Ashok Kumar IAS" is enclosed.
3. In view of the false and misleading reply of the respondent CPIO, penal proceedings may be initiated against the CPIO u/s 20. A direction be also given to the Chandigarh Police to compensate the undersigned u/s 19(8)(b) for the detriment suffered due to the wilful and deliberate delay."
[reproduced verbatim] Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Page 3 of 7
9. The copy of order dated 17.10.2025 annexed by the Appellant with his submissions reveals the following:
"In pursuance to notice ASI Chanderma Yadav has appeared in the Court. He was specifically asked whether the photographs and video of the alleged accused were sent to all the police stations and investigating agencies to verify his identity or not, but he submitted that no such effort was made. The complainant has specifically submitted on last date of hearing that direction be given to investigating agency to circulate the photo and video of accused to all the police stations, so that accused can be identified and later on arrested. Perusal of case file shows that photograph of the alleged accused is on the case file, but the Investigating Officer has simply submitted in the untraced report that despite efforts, accused could not be traced. But, when the photograph of the accused was not even circulated within all the police stations of the jurisdiction of Haryana and Chandigarh, then what efforts were made by the Investigating Officer, is not understandable. In these circumstances present untraced report is hereby rejected and file is sent back to the concerned Investigating Officer for further investigation of the case and submit the final report at the earliest. File be sent back to quarter concerned through the SSP, UT, Chandigarh. Judicial proceedings be separated and kept in record. Copy of judicial proceedings be separated and kept in record. Copy of judicial proceedings be placed on police file. Concerned SHO is directed to submit final investigation report as early as possible report as early as possible."
[reproduced verbatim] Decision:
10. Upon perusal of the records and hearing the contentions of the parties, it is noted that the Respondent has denied disclosure of information citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which reads as under:
"(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders."
11. However, the Respondent has not justified application of the provision of law since the Respondent has failed to show how prosecution would get impeded if the information sought for is furnished. It has been held that by the merely citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to deny disclosure of information under the RTI Act is legally untenable, in view of a catena of decisions of the Delhi High Court. Some of the known decisions on this subject are as under:
i. Sudhirranjan Senapati, Addl Commissioner of IT v. UOI, [W.P.(C) No.7048/2011];
Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Page 4 of 7 ii. Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors, [W.P.(C) No.3114/2007];
iii. B.S. Mathur vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court, [W.P.(C) No.295/2011]; and iv. Union of India vs. O.P. Nahar, [W.P.(C) No.3616/2012].
12. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the observation of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision dated 03.12.2007 in the case of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner, holding as under:
" ..13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information..."
[reproduced verbatim]
13. In another order, on this same subject matter, passed on 03.06.2011 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of B S Mathur vs Public Information Officer Of Delhi High Court[[W.P.(C) No.295/2011]], it was held as under:
"...A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8 (1) (h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8 (1) (h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would "impede‟ the investigation."
[reproduced verbatim]
14. The Respondent in the instant case has cited the Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, but the mandate of the Act as reflected in the aforementioned decisions of the High Court states that mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Page 5 of 7 "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. The Respondent has failed to discharge the burden of proving that disclosure of the information would impede the investigation since no grounds have been made out by the Respondent to justify the exemption from disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant.
15. The Commission also takes an adverse note of the fact that the Respondent- Shri Dalbir Singh, CPS, CPIO-cum-Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Central Division, Chandigarh has made incorrect submissions before the Commission in the written submission/counter statement dated 21.01.2026 stating that the Untrace Report had been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh whereas the copy of order dated 17.10.2025 submitted by the Appellant and reproduced in the preceding paragraph clearly indicates that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh - Shri Sachin Yadav had actually stated in the order that: " untraced report is hereby rejected and file is sent back to the concerned Investigating Officer for further investigation of the case and submit the final report at the earliest".
16. In the light of the above facts, the Commission hereby directs as under:
i) Shri Dalbir Singh, CPS, CPIO-cum-Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Central Division, Chandigarh shall furnish the information to the Appellant, keeping in view the current position, including the fresh investigation as directed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, unless he can justify denial of information applying any of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act, including Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in this case. A reasoned revised response shall be furnished by the Respondent, within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to this Commission; and
ii) The Registry of this Bench is directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE to Shri Dalbir Singh, CPS, CPIO-cum-Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Central Division, Chandigarh to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and submitting incorrect facts before the Commission thereby causing obstruction in the dissemination of information.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Page 6 of 7
17. Hearing of the Show Cause case shall be scheduled in normal course by the Registry. The Noticee - Shri Dalbir Singh, CPS, CPIO-cum-Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Central Division, Chandigarh must send a cogent explanation/reply to the Show Cause Notice, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the Show Cause Notice, failing which the reply shall not be taken on record.
The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/626608 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)