Central Information Commission
Om Prakash Yadav vs Indian Army on 13 May, 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/IARMY/A/2024/137620
Om Prakash Yadav ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. RTI Cell, 2. RTI Cell,
Addl DG AE, G-6, D-1 Wing, EME Records,
Integrated Headquarter of MoD (Army), Pin-900453 C/o 56 APO
Sena Bhawan, Gate No 4,
New Delhi-110011
Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026
Date of Decision : 13.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 16.04.2024; 05.06.2024;
First appeal filed on : 29.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's : 13.05.2024
order
Second Appeal dated : 26.11.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application on 20.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"1) Upendra Pratap Yadav Army No 14658229 was on leave or on duty on 20 December 2023."
2. The CPIO, Department of Military Affairs transferred the RTI application to RTI Cell, IHQ of MOD on 04.04.2024 The CPIO, IHQ of MOD furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.04.2024 stating as under:
" 1) Reference your online RTI application dated 18 Mar 2024 and 20 Mar 2024 received both at this office on 05 Apr 2024.
2) It is intimated that information sought by you is not held with this HQ. Moreover, it is intimated that information sought by you is a third party information, disclosure of which would cause undue invasion into the privacy of the individual concerned and it does not serve any public activity or interest. It is therefore, exempted from disclosure under provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. Also no information can be linked without complete details i.e Rank, Unit, Record office etc.
3) This disposes your RTI application mentioned at Para 1 above.
4) The address of First Appellate Authority of this HQ is Provost Marshal & office of RTI Appellate Authority, AG's Branch, Defence Office Complex, KG Marg, A Block, 4th Floor, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), DHQ PO New Delhi-110 001. For further details, in case of preferring an appeal, please refer Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 29.04.2024. The FAA vide its order on 13.05.2024 stating as under:
" 1) WHEREAS, CA Om Prakash Yadav vide application dated 18 Mar 2024 and 20 Mar 2024, had sought information (As per initial application dated 18 Mar 2024 and 20 Mar 2024 on similar pretext) under Right to Information Act 2005.
2) AND WHEREAS, the CPIO at Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), vide their letter No A/810027/RTI/OL-86315 dated 16 Apr 2024 has provisioned reply to the said application.Page 2 of 6
3) AND WHEREAS, aggrieved by the response of the PIO at Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), CA Om Prakash Yadav preferred an appeal dated 29 Apr 2024, under the provisions of section 19 (1) of the said Act, stating that he is not satisfied with the information provided as requested vide his application dated 18 Mar 2024 and 20 Mar 2024.
4) AND NOW THEREFORE, after having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find that appropriate information has already been provisioned to the appellant by the CPIO vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OL- 86315 dated 16 Apr 2024. I, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO. Further, I direct CPIO to transfer the initial application and first appeal to EME Records.
5) The appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly."
4. In compliance to FAA order the CPIO, IHQ of MOD transferred the RTI application to EME Records on 16.05.2024 Further, the CPIO, EME Records transferred the RTI application to 5Fd Regt 03.06.2024.
However, no reply from 5Fd Regt is available on record.
The CPIO, EME Records furnished a reply to the appellant on 05.06.2024 stating as under:
"1) Reference :-
a) Your RTI application No DMAND/R/T/24/01378 dated 18 Mar 2024, DMAND/R/T/24/01458 dated 20 Mar 2024 and appeal dated 29 Apr 2024 received from RTI Cell, Addl DG AE, IHQ of MoD (Army) vide letter No A/810027/RTI/ OL_86315-6851 (Appeal) dated 16 May 2024.
b) This office letter No 2708/RTI Cell/411/628 dated 03 Jun 2024.
2) In this connection suitable reply has already been provided to you vide this office letter cited at Para 1 (b) above (Copy enclosed).
3) This is for your information."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 6Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Om Prakash Yadav through Adv. Ravi Kumar Mehata Respondent: Brig. JM Sharma, CPIO
6. Proof of having served the copy of second appeal to the respondent while filing the same in CIC is not on record.
7. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought is not in the nature of personal information and the individual concerned is a public servant and that the information is required in connection with an ongoing court case, wherein, according to the Appellant, the said individual has filed a false affidavit. The Appellant also submitted that disclosure of the information is necessary to assist the court in arriving at the truth and therefore serves a larger public purpose.
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertains to the leave particulars of a third party and is therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further submitted that the provision of Section 11 of the RTI Act was also invoked, however, no confirmation was received from him.
9. Written submissions dated 04.05.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO, IHQ of MOD is taken on record which states that the appellant had filed an RTI application seeking leave details of Mr. Upendra Pratap Yadav (Army No 14658229). Appellant's initial RTI application dated 20.03.2024 was received at this Cell on 05.04.2024. Case was directly disposed of under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 since applicant sought third Party information vide this RTI Cell letter dated 15.04.2024. Being dissatisfied with reply of the CPIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 29.04.2024. The same was heard by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 13.05.2024, wherein FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and directed to transfer the case to CPIO, EME Records vide Speaking Order dated 13.05.2024. Order of FAA was compiled vide RTI Cell letter dated 16.05.2024. It is intimated that Second Appeal has not been received by their office. Hence, it is requested to that Second Appeal may please be forwarded to EME Records. It is also intimated that a copy of this submission is being sent to the appellant through e-mail on his registered Email Id as mentioned in his initial RTI application.
Page 4 of 610. Written submissions dated 06.05.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO, EME Records is taken on record which states as under:
"Since the information sought is purely personal to third party. Hence, No 14658229X Hav Upendra Pratap Yadav was asked for his consent vide this office letter No 2708/RTI Cell/411 dated 08 Apr 2024 (Refer Annexure VII) and the same was also intimated to the applicant. However, no confirmation has been received from the third party."
Decision:
11.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions, notes that the CPIO, IHQ of MoD furnished a reply dated 16.04.2024 denying disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission further notes that the FAA, vide order dated 13.05.2024, upheld the decision of the CPIO while also directing transfer of the RTI application to EME Records, which was complied with on 16.05.2024. Subsequently, EME Records transferred the matter to 5 Fd Regt on 03.06.2024. However, no reply from the said unit is available on record.
The Commission notes that the information sought pertains to the leave status of a third party and same constitutes personal information relating to that individual's service records. The Commission is of the view that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless disclosure is justified by a larger public interest. The Commission further notes that the respondent also initiated the proceedings under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, by seeking the consent of the said third party. However, no confirmation was received form the third party. Therefore, in the absence of such consent and in the absence of any sufficient material showing any public interest, the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, is justified.
The Commission also notes the submissions of the respondent CPIO that the information is required in connection with an ongoing court proceeding and to challenge an allegedly false affidavit filed by the said third party. However, the Commission is of the view that such purpose, by itself, does not override the exemptions available under the RTI Act. If the Appellant requires the said information for adjudication of issues pending before a court of law, it remains open to him to seek appropriate relief through the judicial process.
Page 5 of 6In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 13.05.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO RTI Cell, Addl DG AE, G-6, D-1 Wing, Integrated Headquarter of MoD (Army), Sena Bhawan, Gate No 4, New Delhi-110011
2. The CPIO RTI Cell, EME Records, Pin-900453 C/o 56 APO
3. Om Prakash Yadav Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)