Central Information Commission
Navjot Lehal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 1 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/604901
Navjot Lehal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o District & Session Judge,
New District Courts Complex,
Sector: 43, Chandigarh -160043 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.07.2025
Date of Decision : 31.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.11.2023
PIO replied on : 29.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"NOTE-I: in said reply it is stated that "earlier also Navjot Lehal had leveled false allegation against than Sh. Vijay Singh, Additional Distt. and Session Judge, Chandigarh"Page 1 of 7
I BE SUPPLIED AUTHENTICATED TRUE COPIES AS FOLLOWS:
(a) COMPLAINT of Sh. Gurmukh Singh before the Deputy Commissioner-
cum-Registrar under Section 145 and 147 of Cr. P.C. against Managing Committee of the society for not opening the gate No.2 of the society; as stated by ADSJ Vijay Singh, under his signature in para no. 7 of order dated 06.01.2020 in CRR/331/2018.
(b) ORDER made upon said Complaint to DC-cum-RCS U/S 145 and 147 of Cr.P.C. by Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society directing the President/Secretary to the society to hold a General Body Meeting to redress the grievances of the complainant-Gurmukh Singh; as stated by ADSJ Vijay Singh, under his signature in para no. 7 of order dated 06.01.2020 in CRR/331/2018.
(c) I be informed DATE and DAIRY NUMBER of said alleged COMPLAINT U/S 145 and 147 of Cr.P.C. given to DC-cum-Registrar, as stated by ADSJ Vijay Singh.
(d) I be informed DATE and DAIRY NUMBER of said alleged ORDER of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society upon complaint to DC-cum-RCS U/S 145 and 147 of Cr.P.C., as stated by ADSJ Vijay Singh.
NOTE-II: in said reply it is stated that "...applicant, instead of challenging the orders dated 05.08.2023 and order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Bharat, filed this transfer petition..."
I BE INFORMED AS FOLLOWS:
(e) Date of impugned order challenged in Crl.Revision/175/2023
(f) Date of impugned order challenged in Crl.Appeal/391/2023
(g) Date of impugned order challenged in Crl.Appeal/402/2023
(h) Date of impugned order challenged in Crl.Appeal/403/2023
(i) Date of impugned order challenged in Crl.Revision/196/2023
(j) Full Name of Ld. Court, which passed impugned orders under challenge, in points (e) to (i) above.Page 2 of 7
NOTE-III: in said reply it is stated that "...applicant has now leveling totally false allegations against Hon'ble Sh. Bharat, Ld. Judge, Chandigarh..." Wherein JMIC Bharat claimed under his signature that "There is dispute between the parties regarding the occurrence taken place from 04:00 p.m. to 06:00 p.m. on 23.2.2017 at Ajanta Society. The relevant CCTV footage was already taken by the IO vide recovery memo on 5.7.2017," stated in para no. 8 of final order dated 05.08.2023 in Crl.Misc./1270/2023 as well as in para no. 7 of final order dated 05.08.2023 in Crl. Misc./1336/2022. AND JMIC Bharat claimed under his signature that "...one camera was working in OFFICE ROOM and one camera was working at the main gate on the date of alleged concurrence from 04:00 PM to 06:00 PM on 23.2.2017 and the same fact came in the investigation of the police." in para no. 7 of final order dated 05.08.2023 in Crl.Misc./1334/2022 and similar is also stated in para no. 7 of final order dated 05.08.2023 in Crl. Misc./1270/2023.
I BE SUPPLIED AUTHENTICATED TRUE COPIES AS FOLLOWS:
(k) Recovery memo on 5.7.2017, since the same has been claimed by JMIC Bharat under his signature as above.
(l) Seizure Memo, whereby CCTV cameras footage of working camera inside OFFICE ROOM of society was seized by IO, since the same has been claimed by JMIC Bharat under his signature as above.
(m) I be also informed Duration, Start Time, End Time and Camera Number of CCTV footages of OFFICE ROOM of society; since the same has been claimed by JMIC Bharat under his signature as above.
(n) Documentary Proof PRIOR to 25.09.2017 wherein said fact that "one camera was working in OFFICE ROOM" came in investigation by police, which stands CONCLUDED on 25.09.2017, with submission of Final investigation reports u/s 173 Cr.P.C., by IO in Trial Court (PCH/3319/2017 and PCH/3320/2017) whereas in Challan there is absolutely NO Whisper, NO Mention and NOT even a hint that any CCTV camera was installed inside the office room of society."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.11.2023 stating as under:
"Please refer to you application under RTI moved before CPIO, District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. In this connection, it is submitted that regarding point a and b, it can be obtained from the copy branch of Page 3 of 7 concerned court by applying the same and regarding points c and d, the requisite information has already been supplied to your good self, copy of the same is enclosed herewith.
Regarding point e to j, report from the concerned court was called and copy of the same is enclosed herewith, which is self-explanatory."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.01.2024, held as under:
"7. I have heard the appellant as well as APIO at length and have also gone through the record carefully.
8. The appellant has sought the information on point 5 (a) and (b) regarding copy of complaint of Sh. Gurmukh Singh made before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar u/s 145 & 147 Cr.P.C. and the order on the said complaint. In reply to said points (a) & (b), the APIO has submitted that copy of same can be obtained form copy branch of concerned court by applying the same. But as per own version of appellant, earlier the then learned First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Chandigarh on her RTI application dated 22.12.201 under appeal has observed that no such complaint was moved by Sh. Gurmukh Singh. In such a situation, I am of the considered view that since when specific answer has been given to appellant under the aforesaid points by the then learned First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, Chandigarh, then on the same lines, second RTI application is not maintainable. As such, no further information is required to be given on said points. The appellant is also advised not to move applications again & again on similar points, which has already been dealt with.
So far as the information sought at point no.5(c) & (d) is concerned, the appellant has sought date & diary number of aforesaid complaint and date & diary number of alleged order on the said complaint. In reply to said information, the APIO has submitted that the requisite information has already been supplied to the appellant and has also furnished copy of the same along with his reply. In such a situation, when copy of same has been supplied to the appellant and has also been placed on record, it cannot be said that the APIO has not provided specific information on the aforesaid points.
As regards information sought at point no.5(e to j), the appellant has although admitted that the information supplied was correct, but the Page 4 of 7 same was ineligible dark copy of original. In this regard, the APIO is directed to supply legible copy of the information to the appellant.
Regarding information at points no.(k) to (n), the appellant has contended that APIO has not replied the same. Perusal of the reply submitted by the APIO nowhere mentions that he has replied to the information sought at points no.(k) to (n). Hence, the APIO is directed to furnish specific reply to points (k) to (n) of RTI application to the appellant.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant be informed accordingly. Record of APIO be returned along with copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Gurmeet Singh, PIO-cum-Superintendent Grade-1, appeared through video conference.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that despite the FAA's directions, the reply on several points remained incomplete or evasive, especially regarding documents claimed by judicial officers in their orders.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 22.07.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the applicant has sought information vide instant RTI application with regard to Complaint of Sh.Gurmukh Singh made before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar under Section 145 and 147 of Cr.P.C. against Managing Committee of the society and Order made thereupon.
It is humbly submitted that it has been reported by the concerned Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. Vijay Singh, ASJ, Chd, that the I concerned record of impugned Order issued through Memo No.279113/Teh(s)/SIE/2008, dated 01.10.2018 was requisitioned by the Court from the Registrar, Chandigarh State Page 5 of 7 Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh in CRR No.331 of 2018 and after the decision of that Criminal Appeal the said record was returned to the said office vide No.ASJ/AHL/No/2020/101, dated 02.03.2020(copy attached). The said record was received in the concerned office on 03.03.2020.
It is pertinent to mention here that as per the record of the APIO of the court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the same Information was supplied to the Appellant in an another RTI Application vide No. APIO/DJ/2022/19, dated 17.02.2022 after obtaining the information from the concerned Ahlmad of the Court of Dr. Rajnish, the then Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal. It is further submitted that as mentioned in First Appeal Order dated 30.03.2022 at para no.7 (Copy enclosed), the application dated 18.05.2018, Diary No.563 was presented by Sh. Gurmukh Singh before Sh. Saurabh Mishra, SDM(South), Chandigarh.
It is further submitted that the Appellant can inspect and obtain copy of the Judicial Record and requisitioned record in relevant cases by adopting the procedure as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant sought various certified documents, factual information, and procedural details based on references in certain judicial orders, including complaints, memos, CCTV seizure records, and dates of court proceedings. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.11.2023 provided a point-wise response. Some information was stated to be obtainable through the court's Copy Branch, while other parts were enclosed or referred to as already provided earlier. As regards certain information which pertain to memos and evidence that may be held by the Investigating Officer or prosecution agencies, the PIO has clarified that such information is not held in their records. The RTI Act, under Section 2(f), only permits access to information "held by or under the control of" a public authority. A public authority cannot be compelled to procure records from other departments to respond to an RTI.
8. The Commission agrees with the Respondent's submission that judicial and requisitioned records in CRR/331/2018 were returned to the concerned office and are not available with the PIO. The Appellant may access such records Page 6 of 7 via appropriate judicial processes, not through the RTI mechanism. It was also noted that several queries, including those challenging contents of judicial orders or requesting justification of judicial findings (e.g., working CCTV cameras, factual statements in court judgments), fall outside the purview of RTI Act. The RTI Act is not a platform for contesting judicial reasoning or re- investigating facts concluded by courts.
9. In view of the above submissions, the Commission finds that replies given by the Respondents are in consonance with the provisions of f the RTI Act and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
FAA cum District and Sessions judge, Chandigarh, O/o District & Session Judge, New District Courts Complex, Sector: 43, Chandigarh - 160043 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)