Central Information Commission
Sham Sunder vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 13 March, 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/DIGDE/C/2024/634010
CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/634100
Sham Sunder ........िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO O/o Defence Estates
Officer,
Jalandhar Circle,
Jalandhar Cantt,
Punjab-144005
Date of Hearing : 10.03.2026
Date of Decision : 12.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant &
respondents are common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from complaints:
Case No Date of RTI CPIO Reply First Appeal FAA Order Complaint
Dated Dated
634010 19.05.2022 08.07.2022 06.03.2023 01.07.2024 08.08.2024
634100 21.02.2023 03.03.2023 18.06.2022 01.07.2024 09.08.2024
Page 1 of 7
1. Complaint- CIC/MODEF/C/2024/634010
Information sought:
The complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.05.2022 seeking the following information :
Copy of your letter dated 22/07/2021 attached, please provide following information relating to the issues relating to Bungalow no 151 mentioned in letter.
"1) In attached letter it was mentioned that DDE have issued directions for submissions of fresh proposal and also for taking action under PPE act for removal of encroachment/unauthorized occupants which is under process. Provide complete record of submission of fresh proposal as mentioned in the attached letter.
Also provide complete record including file noting of action taken under PPE act for removal of encroachment/unauthorized occupants whom you have claimed are under process.
2) Provide complete record including file noting in respect of final action taken against the officials who has facilitated the construction of commercial building without getting the map approved and lease is for residential purpose resulting in undue benefit of croers of rupees to lessee.
3) Copy of complete record including file noting of Final action taken against lessee for executing lease deed with bank by showing himself as owner of the property.
4) Copy of complete record including file noting in respect of final action taken on determination of lease as per new policy.
5) Copy of guidelines depicting therein that act taken place before circulating the new policy be also taken under new policy.
6) Copy of complete record including file noting of disposal of issues raised in respect of bungalow number 151 from the date when it was firstly issues till the date on which information was provided".
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 08.07.2022 stating as under:
"As per record maintained by the office of Defence Estates Officer, Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantt. your good-self is not recorded HOR of the Bungalow No.151, The Mall, Ferozepur Cantt., hence the information asked vide your application under reference relates to third party. Thus, the same cannot be supplied, unless permitted by the concerned person to whom it relates. Hence, the Page 2 of 7 said information under RTI Act, 2005 cannot be provided being "third party" information U/s 8 (i) of the RTI Act, 2005".
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.07.2024 stated as under:
"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".
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the complaint.
2. Complaint - CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/634100 The complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2023 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 Page 3 of 7 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 without the approval of Map and permission of the department. Designation of the authority along with his official communication address who dealt the issue".
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 03.03.2023 stating as under:
"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 good self 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".
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal on 18.06.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 01.07.2024 stated as under:
"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 08.07.2022 is correct as per DEO Jalandhar office record".
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present Respondent: Mr. Hemant Jain, DGDE, ADEO, Jalalndhar
2. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
3. The complainant is not present despite service of notice of hearing.Page 4 of 7
4. Written submissions dated 10.03.2026 filed by the complainant is taken on record which mentions the reason for non-appearance before the Commission and also states that he had filed RTI applications seeking information regarding Bungalow No. 151, including copies of proposals submitted to the DDE, records and file notings relating to action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, action taken against officials and the lessee, records regarding determination of lease under the new policy etc. The respondent CPIO denied the information by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground of third-party information. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed First Appeals, however, the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.07.2024 mechanically upheld the CPIO's reply. Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for disclosure of the complete information and appropriate action for wrongful denial.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the property in question pertains to defence land and the information sought relates to records concerning a specific leased property. It was further contended that the complainant is not the recorded holder of rights (HOR) of Bungalow No.151 and therefore the information requested relates to a third party. Accordingly, the CPIO had denied the information by invoking the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent also submitted that the proposal regarding determination of lease of the said property had been forwarded to higher authorities and the matter is still under process. It was further argued that the disclosure of such records without the consent of the concerned third party would not be permissible unless larger public interest is established.
Decision
6. 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 complainant had sought specific documentary information relating to Bungalow No.151, including records of proposals, file notings, and action taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
The Commission also observes that the Complainant has made a prayer in the instant complaint to provide information. In this regard, the Commission places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011, decided on 12.12.2011, wherein it was held inter alia as under:
Page 5 of 7"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusals to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision."
The Commission has repeatedly observed that the complaint jurisdiction under Section 18 cannot be invoked as a substitute for the appellate remedy, nor can it be used to bypass the statutory procedure expressly laid down under the Act. Therefore, no information can be provided under section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 to the complainant.
The Commission further observes that the respondent public authority had earlier issued a reply dated 22.07.2021 in response to the complainant's grievance dated 28.06.2021, wherein information on the same subject property was provided stating that proposals for determination of lease had been submitted to higher authorities and that directions had been issued for initiating action under the relevant provisions for removal of encroachment/unauthorized occupants. However, when the complainant subsequently filed the RTI application seeking the complete records and file notings relating to the very actions referred to in the said letter dated 22.07.2021, the CPIO denied the information by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that the information pertains to a third party.
The Commission finds this position of the respondent contradictory and untenable. Once the public authority itself had disclosed the existence of certain actions and proposals in its earlier correspondence dated 22.07.2021, the subsequent denial of the underlying records relating to those very actions under the RTI Act on the ground of "third party information" appears unjustified. The Commission also notes that if the Respondent was of the view that the information involved third-party Page 6 of 7 interests, the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ought to have been followed. However, no material has been placed on record to show that such procedure was undertaken before denying the information.
In view of the above circumstances, the Commission is of the prima facie view that the denial of information by the CPIO lacks adequate justification.
Accordingly, the Commission directs the respondent CPIO to show cause as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI 2005 should not be initiated for denial of information without adequate justification. The written explanation with the comments of FAA shall be submitted to the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above directions, the instant Complaints to be re-listed for decision, after receipt of written explanations of CPIO.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 12.03.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S K Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
1. CPIO O/o Defence Estates Officer, Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab-144005
2. Mr. Sham Sundar Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)