Central Information Commission
Mukesh Kumar Kumawat vs Rajasthan High Court on 8 December, 2025
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RJHCJ/A/2024/138579
Mukesh Kumar Kumawat ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur, Raj. ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.06.2024 FA : 29.06.2024 SA : 25.11.2024
CPIO : 15.06.2024 FAO : 30.09.2024 Hearing : 02.12.2025
Date of Decision: 08.12.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Details of information for Legal Action taken I. Applicant humbly request from The Registrar General & The Registrar Vigilance Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur kindly save C.C.T.V. futej video recording on record of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Sikar of all dates 23.04.2024, 24.04.2024 & 26.04.2024 time between 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM because Chief Judicial Magistrate Mr. Vikash Achrä, Sikar pass false and concocted order on back date 23.04.2024, 24.04.2024 & 26.04.2024 without hearing and argument from advocate of respondents in Case no. 121/2022. Then kindly order for stay of Page 1 of 5 case no 121/2022 (Aarti Kumawat v/s Mukesh Kumar & etc, P.W.D.V.A 2005) and other three cases (53/2022, 1085/2022, 1086/2022) of learned CJM Court and order for transfer these cases out of Sikar, Court area in Sikar, District. Because these orders not pass by learned CJM Court on dated 23.04.2024, 24.04.2024 & 26.04.2024. Kindly save on record and verify C.C.T.V. futej video recording of learned CJM court of above dates. Respondent known about these orders on dated
02.05.2024 through certified-copies of these orders. These are not proper as per Rule of Law.
Details already sent through application on dated 07.05.2024 via registered Indian post.
II. Applicant humbly request from The Registrar General & The Registrar Vigilance applicant had been submitted a application on dated 20.05.2024 to learned District & Session Court, Sikar for save of C.C.T.V. futej video recording on record of learned CJM court, Sikar of all dates 23.04.2024, 24.04.2024 & 26.04.2024 time between 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM and applicant also requested to learned District & Session Court, Sikar for carry on record application of appeal u/s 19(1) to Director General of Police, Jaipur on dated 30.03.2024 on transfer petition file u/s 408 CRPC via case no. 84/2024.
III. Advocate of applicant was submitting copy application of appeal u/s 19(1) to Director General of, Police, Jaipur on dated 30.03.2024 on transfer petition file u/s 408 CRPC via case no. 84/2024 on dated 18.05.2024 but this and other documents not accepted by learned District & Session Court, Sikar on dated 18.05.2024 on transfer petition case no. 84/2024 and reply provided by learned District & Session Court, Sikar on dated 18.05.2024 to the advocate of applicant if police will carry wrong & illegal action in Sikar court area, Its not our responsibility to protect the applicant from Sikar police. Then its clearly seem life Page 2 of 5 and liberty fully insecure of applicant and family person of applicant in Sikar court area.
IV. Applicant humbly request from The Registrar General & The Registrar Vigilance that Chief Judicial Magistrate Mr. Vikash Achra & ACJM Ms. Seema Chauhan & clerk Mr. Omprakash Kudi all are fully active for fully illegal action on applicant & family person of applicant without any offence by applicant as a conspiracy on false & concocted basis & ready for lodge false & concocted cases on applicant & his family person without any offence in Sikar court area as a conspiracy from Tufaan Sing, SI kotwali police station Sikar & other police officer & advocate Kailash Bijarniya, advocate Mukesh Kumawat, client Aarti Kumawat & Subham Kumawat & other conspiracy persons.
V. These all persons are active & ready for lodge false & concocted cases on applicant & his family person after tear out destroyed most important applications/documents of applicant with court fees in ACJM court no 1, Sikar on dated 05.09.2023 on order of ACJM Ms. Seema Chauhan by Mr. Omprakash Kudi and change & cut the date on order sheet of case no. 121/2022 from 15.04.2023
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"With reference to your above referred application, it is to inform you that the information sought at Point No. 3(b), is advice/request and this office is not capable to give. Further, the answers to such questions depend on particular case under relevant provisions of law. Hence, no simplified straight line reply may be given.
You can seek only such information which is readily available with the public authority. Information sought by you does not fall within the definition of "information", as defined in Section 2(f) of the Right to Information, Act, 2005, therefore, the same cannot be provided."Page 3 of 5
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.11.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Karthik Seth, Counsel, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application was based on presumptions/surmises and in the form a request, which was not squarely covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied on 15.06.2024. The Commission takes note of the fact that the appellant's query is non- specific and in the nature of a statement, therefore, the CPIO's reply dated 15.06.2024 is found appropriate to that effect. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 08.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342001 2 Mukesh Kumar Kumawat Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)