Central Information Commission
Vijaya Shanti Singh vs Department Of Millitary Affairs on 17 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/615553
Vijaya Shanti Singh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval
Command, Naval Base,
Visakhapatnam - 530014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025
Date of Decision : 16.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 07.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 05.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.03.2024
Compliance of FA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 31.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. I, Vijaya Shanti Singh W/O Divesh Kumar, ME 1, 243856-W. My spouse is a Serving Sailor of Indian Navy and presently posted at INS Eksila, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam. I was interrogated and Page 1 of 6 threatened by Hanuman, RPO, 230439-A and two Unknown Civilians at my residence (14-4, 26A, Anthony Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-02) on 02 Mar 23 at around 1245-1330 hrs in the absence of my spouse at that time my spouse was on-duty at Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam. You are requested to furnish important following documents related to this interrogation/visit at my residence for further action.
(a) Certified true copy (CTC) of laid down policy under which Hanuman, RPO, 230439A and two unknown civilians visited at residence of applicant (Vijaya Shanti Singh) which is situated at Civil area, vide letter forwarded by HQENC to Mrs. Vijaya Shanti Singh letter Nos.
RP/0202/243856-W dated 10 May 23 and RP/0202/243856-W dated 11 Aug 23.
(b) Details of Personnel sent to applicant residence address (14-4, 26A, Anthony Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-02) to interrogate and threaten to applicant on 02 Mar 23 at around 1245-1330 hrs by Hanuman, RPO, 230439-A and two unknown civilians and Certified true copy of authorization of visit thereof.
(c) Certified true copy (CTC) of records of previous visit if any at applicant residence since 11 Jul 22 to 04 Sep 23."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.12.2023 stating as under:
"1. Query wise response to your RTI application based on inputs received from NCB(V) is as follows: -
(a) Query No. 1 (a) and (b). The information sought by you pertains to service related aspect and does not fall within the ambit of section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) Query No. (c). section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005. Personal details of individuals cannot be provided as per
2. It is further intimated that the same information sought by you has already been provide vide HQENC letter RP/0202/243856-W dated 10 May 23 (copy enclosed)."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 28.03.2024, held as under.
"Your appeal has been examined in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 along with submission of PIO. You have sought the same information as was sought in the RTI application which Page 2 of 6 is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 The PIO's response dated 07 Dec 23 is considered appropriate."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Divesh Kumar appeared on behalf of the Appellant through video conference.
Respondent: Capt. GS Ugandhar Reddy, PIO, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. The Appellant's representative inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the Respondent till the date of hearing.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that he had filed a written submission dated 29.08.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. Refer to the Hon'ble CIC hearing notice CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/615553 dated 06 Aug 25 i.r.o. Smt. Vijaya Shanti Singh scheduled at 1110 Hrs on 02 Sep 25.
2. The appellant, Smt. Vijaya Shanti Singh W/o 243856-W, LME Divesh Kumar (A serving sailor of IN), vide her RTI Application 31 Oct 23 and subsequent First Appeal 05 Jan 24, had sought following service-related information wrt a visit of her residence at duty station undertaken by the sailor's unit on 02 Mar 23 iaw the laid down Policy in this regard: -
2.1 Query No. 1(a). Certified true copy (CTC) of laid down policy under which Hanuman, RPO, 230439-A and two unknown civilians visited the residence of the applicant which is situated in Civil area, vide letter forwarded by HQENC to applicant letter no Page 3 of 6 RP/0202/243856-W dated 10 May 23 and RP/0202/243856-W dated 11 Aug 23, 2.2 Query No. 1(b) Details of Personnel sent to appellant's residence address (14-4, 26A, Anthony Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-
02) to interrogate and threaten to appellant on 02 Mar 23 at around 1245-1330 Hrs by 230439-A, RPO Hanuman and two unknown civilians and Certified true copy of authorisation of visit thereof.
2.3 Query No. 1(c) Certified true copy (CTC) of records of previous visit if any at applicant residence since 11 Jul 22 to 04 Sep 23.
3. Justification for Response of PIO and Order of FAA 3.1 For Query No. 1(a). It has been ascertained that the policy referred to by the appellant pertains to 'Grant of MLR' promulgated vide this Headquarters letter AD/3408/Gen dated 15 Oct 18. In terms of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, "information available to the person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information" is exempted from disclosure. Clearly, the policy in question has been disseminated for consumption of serving Naval Personnel only. Therefore, it is information held in confidence and its disclosure to non-entitled person (Appellant) is not within the ambit of RTI Legislation. Further, disclosure of said information does also not serve any larger public interest. Accordingly, the same was denied.
3.2 For Query No. 1(b). The details sought were iro personnel who were deputed by the sailor's unit to undertake checks iaw the laid down procedure as per Policy ibid above. In terms of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005, "if the disclosure would endanger the life and physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes, then public authority is exempted from disclosure of such information" Accordingly, the same was denied.
3.3 For Query No. 1(c). The information sought w.r.t. the records of visits, contains details of personnel who were deputed by the sailor's unit to undertake checks iaw the laid down procedure as per Policy ibid. The same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the same was denied.
Page 4 of 64. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that denial to the information sought was justified as per extant exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. 2005. It is requested that the Hon'ble CIC may uphold the order of FAA and dispose off the Second Appeal."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the RTI application and the first appeal were replied vide letters dated 07.12.2023 and 28.03.2024. After receipt of hearing notice, the Respondent has filed a detailed written submission dated 29.08.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and provided additional information and also clarified queries raised by the appellant in her Second Appeal. The Commission finds that the submissions made by the Respondent are appropriate, thus, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this matter. However, since a copy of the said written submission is not served to the Appellant, in the interest of justice, the respondent is directed to provide a copy of the written submission dated 29.08.2025 to the Appellant along with all enclosures, within two weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of 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 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam - 530014 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)