Central Information Commission
Sham Sunder vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 1 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/644879
Sham Sunder ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO
O/o the Defence Estate Officer Jalandhar Circle,
Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab-144005
Date of Hearing : 01.04.2026
Date of Decision : 01.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.02.2022
CPIO replied on : 03.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's : 01.07.2024
order
Complaint dated : 09.10.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2022 seeking the following information :
"I have raised issue of undue benefit extended to lessee who had the property in possession for residential purpose. He let out he said property by constructing building for commercial purpose to PNB Firozepur Cantt without getting the MAP approved and without getting the consent of the department. In the lease agreement he had shown himself as owner of the property. I have received letter dated 22/07/2021 from DEO Jalandhar (copy attached. Thereafter constant follow up I have heard nothing from the department.
Please provide me following information under RTI act.
1) Complete record of the action taken by the department on the said issues w.e.f. date when I have raised the issue first time. Designation of the authority along with his official communication addresses who dealt the issue.
2) Record of Final action taken for removal of encroachment/unauthorized occupants and the date on which encroachment/unauthorized occupants removed. .
Designation of the authority along with his official communication addresses who dealt the issue.
3) Record of action taken for recovery of undue benefit extended to the lessee by department and recovery made if any. Designation of the authority along with his official communication addresses who dealt the issue.
4) Record of action taken by the department against the lessee for cheating by showing him as owner of the property. Designation of the authority along with his official communication addresses who dealt the issue.
5) Record of action taken against the officials who in connivance with the lessee allowed construction of commercial building with out the approval of Map and permission of the department. Designation of the authority along with his official communication address who dealt the issue".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.03.2023.
Page 2 of 6"Reference your RTI Registration no. DEOJL/R/T/22/00004 dated 21.02.2022.
Parawise replies to the observations raised by your letter under reference are given as under :-
1 to 5. In this connection it is intimated that this office has already forwarded the proposal to higher authorities to determination the said lease of this property & is in process. Moreover, as per the records maintained by this office of DEO Jalandhar Cantt, your goodself is not the recorded HOR of said property. Hence, the documents asked vide your application under reference related to the third party information. Thus, the same cannot be supplied, unless permitted by the concerned person to whom it relates.
Hence, the said information under RTI Act cannot be provided being third party information U/s 8(i)(j) of RTI Act 2005".
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 06.03.2023. The FAA vide its order on 01.07.2024 stated as under:
"Reference your RTI Appeal Registration No.DEOJL/A/E/23/00001 dated 06.03.2023.
You have preferred an appeal U/S 19 of the RTI Act 2005 vide above referred Registration No. However, it is confirm that information given to you by the CPIO O/o DEO Jalandhar vide their letter No.F-MISC/RTI/ACT/VOL-IV dated 03.03.2023 is correct as per DEO Jalandhar office record".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with instant complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Sham Sunder Respondent: Not present
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The complainant inter alia submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent despite filing of multiple RTI applications.
Page 3 of 67. The respondent is not present despite service of notice of hearing.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of the records, notes that the instant RTI application had already been adjudicated by the Commission in earlier proceedings in File No. CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/634100 vide interim decision dated 12.03.2026.
The Commission observes that the issues raised in the present appeal are same to those already decided earlier. The Commission is of the view that entertaining the same matter repeatedly would amount to re- litigation of an already settled issue.
In this regard Commission would like to place reliance on an earlier order by a Coordinate Bench of this Commission in second appeal No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001046SA, discussed the issue of res judicata as under -
"...The Commission noticed that some of the applicants are filing photocopies of RTI requests with the same public authorities time and again seeking information, irrespective of the fact that previous application reached second appeal level and information was furnished or refused as decided by the wisdom of authorities. When not taken to High Court for judicial review, the matter assumes finality and cannot be sought for again from the PIO. Though Right to Information Act, 2005 did not have any specific provision to bar the re-petition for information like Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the universal principle of civil justice 'res judicata' will certainly apply and the repeated request has to be rejected with an emphasis. Two Latin maxims form the basis of this rule, they are: 'interest republicae ut sit finis litium' (= it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation) and 'nemo devet vis vexar pro una et eadem cause" (=no man should be taxed twice over for the same cause). If the PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and the Commissions allow repeated RTI applications, there will be no end to the information litigation and the public authorities would be continuously taxed for no fault of them. Appeal as provided by law is allowed, though it appears like re-litigating, because it is review and an opportunity to challenge the order on reasonable and legal grounds. Filing same or slightly modified application for information which was decided, is against Page 4 of 6 the principles of natural justice pertaining to procedure. Accordingly, the Commission admonishes the Appellant for repeatedly filing identical/similar RTI applications and Second Appeals on the same subject matter, thereby misusing the provisions of the RTI Act and burdening the public authority as well as the Commission."
The Commission further notes that the RTI mechanism cannot be allowed to be used as a tool for repeatedly seeking re-adjudication of matters which are already decided. Accordingly, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the complainant for repeatedly filing the same RTI applications and complaints on the same subject matter, thereby misusing the provisions of the RTI Act and burdening the public authority as well as the Commission.
The Commission also notes that the respondent CPIO did not appear during the hearing despite due service of notice of hearing. Such casual and negligent approach towards the proceedings of the Commission is viewed seriously. The Commission therefore admonishes the conduct of the respondent CPIO for remaining absent during the hearing despite due service of notice of hearing and cautions him to remain careful in future for proceedings before the Commission. A copy of this order is marked to Nodal Officer RTI for taking necessary action to ensure that respondent CPIO is present during hearing of the commission.
In view of the above, no further intervention is warranted in the instant matter.
With the above observations and directions, the instant Complaint is dismissed.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 01.04.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar Page 5 of 6 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. CPIO O/o the Defence Estate Officer Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab-144005
2. Nodal Officer RTI, O/o the Defence Estate Officer Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab-144005
3. Mr. Sham Sunder Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)