Central Information Commission
Anil Dutt Sharma vs Gnctd on 2 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 ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794
Anil Dutt Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Anti-Corruption Branch,
GNCTD ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.12.2021 FA : 15.02.2022 SA : 28.03.2022
CPIO : 18.01.2022 FAO : 15.03.2022 Hearing : 28.01.2026
Date of Decision: 02.02.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.12.2021, before the CPIO, Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch, GNCTD, seeking the information as under:
"1. The Pankaj Sharma had departed to conduct raid on 24.06.2014 if he was returned in the police station on that day than please provide me copy of any proof of his arrival in the ACB police station on 24.06.2014 or D.D. entry during the period between 3.00 pm to 7.00 pm
2. Please prove me copy of proof of vehicle No. DL 1YC 0853 regarding:
i. Time of reaching the vehicle in the ACB on 24.06.2014 from its owner.Page 1 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794
ii. Time of departure from ACB on 24.06.2014 to the owner.
iii. Amount paid to the owner on account of the movement of the vehicle on 24.06.2014 and its total K.M. running.
iv. Terms of hiring of the vehicle set between the ACB and the owner
3. Please provide me copies of Compact discs which contained audio recordings received from the applicant in reference of F.I.R. No. 51/14 ACB. (During Oct 2014 to latest)"
2. The CPIO & ACP, Anti-Corruption Branch, GNCTD, replied to the RTI Application on 18.01.2022, as under:
"1. You are hereby informed that the copies of all DD entries in this regard already provided to you vide this office letter No. 1223/ID-01/2020/DRTI/ACB dt. 10/02/20.
2.You have already been informed in this regard by Delhi Tourism Department vide ID No. 142 dt. 03/05/19.
3.The information sought by the applicant is the information already with him."
3. Dissatisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2022 before the FAA, Anti-Corruption Branch, GNCTD. The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 28.03.2022, inter alia stating as under:
"1. That the appellant had filed RTI application on 13.12.2022 before the PIO Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch to get the information but the PIO did not provide sought information instead of that attempted to mislead the appellant.
2. That the appellant was falsely implicated in the ACB case without following due and established procedure of law whereas the appellant was not a public servant. In the RTI application the appellant had mentioned that the trial in that case has been reached at the stage of defence evidence..."Page 2 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite due service of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, A K Singh, ACP & CPIO, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant, and submitted that all these records, as part of the averred ACB case, has been duly served to the Appellant already, in due course of the trial proceedings.
7. The Commission took on record the combined written submissions of the Appellant dated NIL diarized on 25.10.2022, in respect of two corresponding second appeal(s) vide CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114793 and CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114792, in addition to the instant one, filed in pursuance of a hearing held in these matters on 19.10.2022, stating as under:
"1. That the above said cases were heard on 20.10.2022 in presence of representatives appeared on behalf of PIO/ACB and during hearing following issues were arose and the appellant against each issue had submitted verbal submissions before Learned Commissioner. The appellant after availing liberty from the commission do hereby further clarify each and every issue in writing as to that this learned commissioner may arrive just and fair decision.
2. That the appellate humbly submits that giving opportunity to the representatives of ACB was illegal because the appellant had approached the CIC after qualifying state of 1stAppellate Authority. The office memorandum No. 10/23/2007-1R, 9th July 2007, point No. 3, states that:
'Deciding appeals under RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function, in order to do so, the order passed by the appellate Authority should be a speaking order.....' xxx
1. That in view of abovesaid O.M. the order of the 1st Appellate Authority should be speaking order. In the present case the grounds of appeal are explicated but in the order of 1st Appellate Authority there is no reference/consideration of ground of appeal in the Page 3 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794 light of submissions made by the PIO. So if the PIO was silent at the stage of 1st Appellate Authority, he cannot defend his reply at the stage of 2nd appeal. As the learned commissioner cannot discharge duty as 1st Appellate Authority. If so, it will amount wrong practice of both the appellate Authorities and will defeat the object of RTI Act. In case opportunity of hearing is given to the PIO, an action under CCS (Conduct) Rules should be recommended against 1st Appellate Authority by exercising power under 18 (3) & 25(5) in the interest of enactment of RTI Act.
2. That in all 3 cases, as per replies of PIO sought information was available with the PIO but by giving different reasons sought information was denied. The object to enactment of RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in the public Authorities so it must be emerged and understood explicitly from the provided information against the query whatever sought.
3. That the petitioner submits for those queries against which the PIO had replied that sought information i.e. copy of complaint, CDs and transcripts are already with him, should be ensured by learned Commissioner that if the court allows the PIO as a defence witness and during his examination before the Court any complaint, CDs or transcript is put before him by the appellant, he will not denied that particular complaint or CD were not received in the ACB otherwise each and every paper and entire received material should be provided to the appellant.
4. That in the case I.D. no. 345/ID-159/2021/RTI/ACB dated 18.01.2022 query no. 3 the PIO did not inform the file no. and name of the person who is custodian of received CDs and request latter dated 07.11.2015 along with transcripts of phone calls from the appellant. If the reply is true, the PIO may be directed to file an affidavit that Mr. Rahul had carried away sought information along with him when he was transferred.
5. That information sought in query no. 5 & 6 of I.D. no. 345/ID-159/2021/RTI/ACB dated 18.01.2022, query no. 3 of 344/ID-158/2021/RTI/ACB dated 18.01.2022, the PIO had informed that information sought by the applicant is the information already with him.
During hearing it was contended that the copy of complaint cannot be sought under RTI Page 4 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794 Act in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment. In this connection the appellant submits that said judgment was passed in another context. In that judgment the complaint was not involved in decision making process and was not forwarded from other authorities for enquiry/investigation along with evidences. In the present matter as per Standing order no. 104/2010 of Delhi Police the outcome of the complaint is informed to the complainant and said complaint was received under section 2 (d) Cr.P.C to proceed under section 154 Cr.P.C. All these complaints were involved in decision making process and had evidence of the appellant which is to be used in defence in the trial of F.I.R. No. 51/14. As far as provided CDs are concerned. The police were required to send said CDs F.S.L. for voice test. If provided information is true, the PIO should file an Affidavit affirming that the enclosed FSL report in the charge-Sheet of case F.I.R. also confirms the voice which is contained in the CDs in question.
6. That the PIO did not inform complete information sought in query no. 10 i.e. incharge of complainant receiving section of ACB on 24.06.2014, his room number, particulars of all 14 complaints received on 24.06.2014 as sought in 10 (b) especially name of the complainant and its D.D. entries. Sought information is in public domain in view of RTI Manual-6 (Copy enclosed) and Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement passed in case of Youth Bar Association of India vs Unio of India (Copy enclosed). This information will help the appellant to prove that on 24.06.2014 there was no complaint against the appellant. The ACB officers has falsely implicated the appellant.
7. That the PIO against the query no. 1 of I.D. No. 344/ID-158/2021/RTI/ACB dated 18.01.2022 had replied that the copies of all DD entries vide this office letter no. 1223/ID- 01/2020/DRTI/ACB dated 10.02.2020 were already provided to the appellant. It shows that arrival D.D. entry of Pankaj Sharma in the police Station is available and question is that whether it was provided to the appellant earlier. It is apparent that during hearing the PIO was failed to place before the Commission any such D.D. entry which pertains to arrival of Pankaj Sharma. The submissions of the PIO/on his behalf that they had provided all the D.D. entries related to F.I.R. No. 51/14 ACB made on 24.06.2014 and 25.06.2014. The appellant submits that if in all D.D. entries which were provided vide RTI reply I.D. Page 5 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794 no. 1223/ID-01/2020/DRTI/ACB dated 10.02.2020 there is no information/D.D. entry which is specifically pertains to arrival of Pankaj Sharma in the ACB police Station on 24.06.2014, it cannot be said that sought information was provided to the appellant earlier. However the PIO vide reply I.D. no. 6502/ID-05/2019/DRTI/ACB dated 08.07.2019 has denied arrival of Pankaj Sharma in the ACB. In this query it should be transparent whether the Pankaj Sharma was arrived in the ACB police Station after conducting raid and if yes, at what time. The reply of the PIO is silent and it is an attempt of misleading. There are 4 situations:
A. Either the PIO should provide arrival D.D. entry of Pankaj Sharma in the police Station on 24.06.2014 mentioning in the reply its D.D. entry number and time.
B. Should deny his arrival/ mentioning that there is no D.D. entry.
C. Or should specifically mention in the reply that in the earlier provided D.D. entries vide I.D. Number 1223/ID-01/2020/DRTI/ACB dated 10.02.2020 the particular D.D. entry no. is which one and its time is that.
D. Or should reply that in all provided D.D. entries earlier there are arrival D.D. entries of Pankaj Sharma in the police Station on 24.06.2014 and if the appellant on the basis of his discretion presumes any provided D.D. entry as arrival D.D. entry of Pankaj Sharma from all D.D. entries and the PIO is called in the Court as a defence witness in ongoing trial of F.I.R. No. 51/14 ACB, the PIO will not deny arrival of Pankaj Sharma.
8. That in the query no. 2 of 344/ID-158/2021/RTI/ACB dated 18.01.2022, the appellant had sought information about the vehicle No. DL 1YC 0853 but the PIO had referred RTI reply I.D. No. 142 dated 03.05.2019 provided by Delhi tourism Department in which time of departure from the ACB police station and terms of hiring of vehicles were sought from outside etc. is not mentioned. It is pertinent to mention here that in the D.D. entry No. 17 dated 24.06.2014 upon which F.I.R. No. 51/14 ACB was registered it is mentioned that the raiding team was proceeded to conduct raid by two vehicles. But as per Page 6 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794 log book of the vehicle no. DL 6CJ 8290 total movement was 25 K.M. but as per information provided under RTI Act vide letter I.D. No. 142 dated 03.05.2019, the movement of another vehicle no. DL 1YC 0858 was 56 K.M. So the PIO should provide information from the record of ACB.
xxx In the present appeals the PIO and 1st Appellate Authority are in conspiracy therefore they withheld sought information and sought information is not become part charge-Sheet of F.I.R. because during information the appellant had provided many evidences by which the offence of ACB police officers and complainant was disclosed therefore they suppressed the defence of the appellant.
The learned commissioner may be pleased to direct the PIO to provide sought information specifically along with Affidavit or enquiry under section 18 (3) RTI Act may be conducted in the interest of justice."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes at the outset that, the information sought by the Appellant at points 1 & 2 of the instant RTI Application, read in conjunction with his contentions mentioned in the grounds for the second appeal as well as in the submissions dated 25.10.2022, appears to be solely premised on conjecture. The Appellant aims at seeking proof of a certain event involving the movement of a third party, through such queries that do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It seems that access to information does not appear to be the objective and, instead he seeks to question the CPIO, in the context of his alleged false implication in the averred Court case. It is needless to observe that the Appellant's arguments do not explicitly deny the contention of the CPIO that the Appellant is in possession of these records, but seeks to unnecessarily challenge the factual accuracy of these records. It is observed that vide the written submissions of 25.10.2022, the Appellant has sought an inquiry under Section 18 of the RTI Act in these three appeal(s), which is an untenable submission, considering these cases have been specifically filed under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
Page 7 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/1147949. Now, it is a matter of record as gathered from the archives of the Commission that till date around 200 cases filed by the Appellant against various offices under GNCTD, have been heard and decided by the Commission between 2011 and 2024. In about 70 of these cases, that were dealt with in a bunch manner by the Commission vide order dated 05.05.2017, a common finding was recorded as under:
"The RTI regime is not meant to satisfy the insatiable demands of one individual, which would detract the public authority completely from discharging its normal functions."
10. Similarly, vide a later decision dated 11.03.2021, in respect of 12 Second Appeal(s) of the Appellant filed against various offices of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Commission prefaced the order as under:
"At the outset Commission observes that present RTI applications are aimed to extract every possible information from the public authority regarding all SE, EE, AE & JE and is akin to conducting a performance audit. The queries solicit voluminous information and each one of them tends to dig out metadata. Therefore, Commission is irked by the said conduct of the Appellant in using the RTI channel in such manner wherein most of the information sought by him is either voluminous, hypothetical or vague in nature and same are sought in extremely cumbersome manner. Commission observes that disclosure of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the Respondent Authorities thereby attracting Section 7(9) and thus it was well within the right of the PIOs to call upon the appellant to inspect the record in majority of the cases. The appellant did not turn up for said inspections and thus forfeited his right to secure information."
11. Similarly, vide another decision dated 18.02.2022 in respect of 2 appeal(s) filed by the Appellant against various Districts offices of the Delhi Police, the Commission inter alia observed that- "The facts of the case necessitate that the observations of the Apex Court in the decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case titled: Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors about harmonising the conflicting Page 8 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794 interests of enhancing transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities and on the other hand to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information...."
12. Then, in the recent past, vide a decision dated 03.12.2024, in respect of cases filed by the Appellant against MCD, the following was inter alia held by the Commission:
"Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that more than 90 cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authority had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that a total number of 3 cases including the present case are listed for today's hearing. The Appellant had filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in his RTI Applications apparently to pressure the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
'...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.Page 9 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022...' In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority."
13. These decisions issued prior to the year 2016 can be accessed from the website of the Commission at cic.gov.in.(2016) and the decisions pronounced onwards of 2016 can be accessed at cic.gov.in.
14. Having perused the archives of the Commission and considering the nature of the RTI Application and the grounds of second appeal under reference as has been discussed in para 8 above, no intervention is warranted in the matter. Nonetheless, the CPIO is advised to ensure that reply to the RTI Application(s) is provided strictly as per the provisions of Section 2(f) read with Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
15. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 02.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 10 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/114794 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)