Central Information Commission
Kamal Kumar vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 15 April, 2026
CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228
Kamal Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: South Andaman
District, Police Department, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Shri Vijay Puram, South
Andaman, Port Blair,
Andaman & Nicobar
PIO under RTI,
Superintendent of Police-HQ,
Police Headquarter, Andaman
and Nicobar Police, Port
Blair-744101 (Andaman &
Nicobar).
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.08.2024 FA : 23.09.2024 SA : 17.12.2024
CPIO : 24.09.2024 FAO : 30.10.2024 Hearing : 09.04.2026
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 6CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228
1) Provide the certified copy of Judgment dated 02nd Dec. 2020 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020 (Shri. Paramvir Singh Saini -Vs- Baljit Singh and Others) as enunciated in reply furnished by the Public Information Officer, Superintendent of Police, South Andaman District on 31/7/2024 vide No. SP(D)SA/RTI/113/2024/3708 and to confirm whether provisions of Clause (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 as mentioned in the reply of Public Information Officer discussed or not in the pari materia matter of the Criminal Original Jurisdiction CRL. M.P. No. 16086 of 1997 In CRL, M.P. No. 4201 of 1997 (Shri. Dilip K. Basu -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Others); Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2302 of 2017 (Shafi Mohammed-Vs- State of Himachal Pradesh); Karnail Singh -Vs- State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539; Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari -Vs- Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra & Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 17; Ram Singh & Ors -Vs-Col. Ram Singh, 1985 (Supp) SCC 211; R. -Vs- Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 ALL ER 464 and R.-Vs Robson, (1972) 2 ALL ER 699 and American Law as noted in American Jurisprudence 2d (Vol. 29) Page 494; Tukaram S. Dighole-Vs- Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329; Tumaso Bruno & Anr. -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178; Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab -Vs- State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1 and State (NCT of Delhi) -Vs- Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC:...etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this regard, it is to inform that the no Memorandum dated 07/11/2019 in F.No. 1/6/2011-IR was received to this office. However, the copy of the information sought contains 192 pages may kindly be obtained from the office off APIO/PHQ on payment as per RTI Act 2005."Page 2 of 6
CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228
3. PIO, Superintendent of Police, South Andaman, vide letter dated 18.09.2024 stated as under:
"..Reference is invited to your RTI application dated 21/08/2024. In this context, kindly refer to the Decision of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi being File No. CIC/UTOAN/A2023/147313 dated 06/08/2024 which pertains to your own case wherein the Central Information Commission has observed that your RTI application dated 21/06/2023 was not in consonance with Rule 3 of the Right to Information rules, 2012.
Whereas the said recent Decision dated 06/08/2024 was made well before filing of the above RTI application dated 21/08/2024 but once again you have been failed to comply the word limit of 500 words in terms of Rule 3 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 and hence, your RTI application dated 21/08/2024 is rejected being not in consonance with Rule 3 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012.."
4. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.10.2024 observed as under:-
"The undersigned has carefully considered the appellant's RTI application and the reply given thereon by the PIO/SP (D)SA. After examination of the RTI file and available records, as well as the decision of CIC/UTOAN/A2023/147313 dated 06/08/2024 passed by Central Information Commission in the matter of Kamal Kumar vs PIO/SP(D)SA the undersigned is of the view that the RTI application filed by the appellant is voluminous, cumbersome in nature and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 words, as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. Hence, the decision of the Public Information Officer/SP(D)SA is therefore, upheld Page 3 of 6 CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228 The appeal is accordingly disposed of."
5. FAA, PHQ vide order dated 07.01.2025 stated as under:
"..Decision
4. I have gone through the relevant records and find that the concerned CPIO of Police Headquarter has provided suitable reply to the RTI application dated 21/08/2024 in terms of provisions of RTI Act, 2005. However, the Appellant is requested to collect the requisite documents from the office of APIO on payment as prescribed under RTI Act,2005. Hence, no further action is required in this matter.
5. The issues raised by the Appellant in his Appeal dated 04/11/2024, has thus been addressed appropriately.
6. However, if the Appellant is not satisfied with the above decision, he may make an Appeal with the Central Information Commissioner, CIC Bhavan, Baha Gang Nath Marg, Munrika New Delhi-110067
7. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off..."
6. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.12.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Balram, SP, Police Headquarter and Ms. Suman Badra, Dy. SP, South Andaman- participated in the hearing through video-conference.
7. The Appellant remained absent despite service of hearing notice.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. Shri Balram, SP, Police Page 4 of 6 CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228 Headquarter stated as regards point No. 10 of the RTI Application, the Appellant was requested to collect the requisite documents from the office on payment as prescribed under RTI Act,2005, but the Appellant failed to do so. Ms. Suman, Dy. SP, South Andaman stated that the queries raised in the RTI Application are voluminous, cumbersome in nature and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 words as per Rule 3 of the RTI Rules 2012. She further stated that the queries raised by the Appellant are also hit by Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, as information sought is voluminous in nature and spread over different files compilation of which would divert the resources of Public Authority. She further stated that the main grievance of the Appellant was related to his tenant. She averred that the tenant of the Appellant has already vacated the premises and the grievance of the Appellant has been resolved.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondents and perusal of records, observes that queries of the Appellant have been properly addressed by the PIO as per the provision of the RTI Act. It is further noted that the PIO during hearing has stated that the grievance of the Appellant has been resolved. Furthermore, the information sought by the Appellant is voluminous in nature compilation of which would unnecessarily lead to diversion of resources of the Respondent Public Authority. It is further observed that as regards point No. 10 of the RTI Application, the Appellant was requested to obtain documents on payment basis, but he failed to do so. Moreover, the Appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear and buttress the case despite service of hearing notice. Hence there remains no reason for intervention in this case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Page 5 of 6 CIC/UTOAN/A/2025/100228 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1. PIO under RTI, Superintendent of Police, South Andaman District, Police Department, Shri Vijay Puram, South Andaman, Port Blair-744101 (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands).
2. PIO under RTI, Superintendent of Police-HQ., Police Headquarter, Andaman and Nicobar Police, Port Blair-744101 (Andaman & Nicobar).
3 Kamal Kumar Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)