Central Information Commission
Charu Gahlot vs Ministry Of Defence on 19 August, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2024/105808
Charu Gahlot .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
O/o DGAFMS Ministry of Defence
A' Block, 4th & 5th Floor Defence
Offices Complex, Africa Avenue,
New Delhi-110023 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.08.2025
Date of Decision : 19.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 11.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 08.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 06.10.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"I had sent a complaint on 11.05.2023 against an Army Officer at your office and the same is enclosed herewith. I need some information under RTI under RTI Act 2005 about my complaint.
1. Please provide me copy of action taken report on my complaint.
2. Please provide me a copy of the noting sheets on my complaint by concerned officers who had conducted the enquiry.
3. If no action can be taken against the Army Officer for submitting false affidavits and declarations for misusing Govt Funds for personal benefit, then please provide me the copy of order/law.
4. Please provide me the copy of the order/law which allows an Army Officer to misuse his uniform in courts and Govt. Offices and for personal benefit."
2. The CPIO/ Col, Dir AFMS(Coord) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.10.2023 stating as under:
"(a) Your complaint dated 11 May 2023 against Lt Col Amit Gahlot had been received at this Dte Gen on 07 Jul 2023 and the same was forwarded to DGMS (Army) vide this office note No 43645/COMPLAINT/Army/DGAFMS/203/DG-1C/2023 dated 12 Jul 2023 (Copy enclosed) to provide suitable reply directly to complainant
(b) to (d) Info sought pertains to DGMS (Army) under the jurisdiction of CPIO, IHQ of MOD (Army). Hence, the same is being transferred to ibid CPIO for providing info directly to you."
3. The CPIO, Brig For Commandant Base Hospital Delhi Cantt. furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.11.2023 stating as under:
"1. The information sought by you vide Para 1 above is denied under the provision of Sec 8 (1) (1) of RTI Act 2005 as it is more of personal grievance & has no larger public interest.
(a) In this regard your attention is drawn to the Apex Court Judgement in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC & Ors (SLP) (C) No 27734/2012) dt 03 Oct 2012 and Judgement by High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ petition No 419/2007 in the case of Dr Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission and Office Memorandum of Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Page 2 of 9 Personnel & Training No 1/7/2009-IR dt 01 Jun 2009 and No 11/2/2013-
IR (Pt.) dt 14 Aug 2013 respectively"
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.12.2023, held as under:
"1. I have perused the RTI application dt 06 Oct 2023 & reply of CPIO 'vide letter No 1148/RTI/LC/22023 dt 06 Nov 2023 and the appeal dt 08 Nov 2023 recd by this hospital on 01 Dec 2023.
2. Summary of RTI application and reply furnished by CPIO.
The information sought by you vide Para 1 above is denied under the provision of Sec 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 as it is more of personal grievance & has no larger public interest.
In this regard your attention is drawn to the Apex Court Judgement in the matter of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs CIC & Ors (SLP) (C) No 27734/2012) dt 03 Oct 2012 and Judgement by High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ petition No 419/2007 in the case of Dr Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission and Office Memorandum of Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training No 1/7/2009-IR dt 01 Jun 2009 and No 11/2/2013- IR (Pt.) dt 14 Aug 2013 respectively.
4. Reply by the CPIO, BHDC that, The information sought by you vide your RTI application No Nil dated 06 Nov 2023 are exempted under Sec 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondents: Shri Vivekanand, O/C Legal Cell & APIO, Shri S S Rana, Deputy Director & representative of CPIO and Shri J M Sharma, CPIO HQ of MoD (Army), all present in person.Page 3 of 9
6. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of her RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that she has sought specific information related to her complaint filed with the Respondent Public Authority, but complete and correct information has not been provided to her by the Respondent till date.
7. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"With due respect, we submit the following information in response to the complaint filed by Charu Gahlot:-
2.1 The appellant, Charu Gahlot is the wife of Sumit Gahlotm who is the younger brother of Lt Col Amit Gahlot. They reside in Najafgarh, New Delhi, and possess ancestral property, including land and houses worth approximately 8-10 crore. These properties were originally in the name of their grandfather.
2.2 Lt Col Amit Gahlot and his wife Dr. Sonam currently reside with their mother, Smt Kamlesh. Sumit Gahlot, husband of Advocate Charu Gahlot, allegedly acquired a share in the parental property through fraudulent means and when parents opposed conduct of Sumit Gahlot then Sumit Gahlot and his wife Adv Charu Gahlot have filed false complaints against their parents while staying in the house of Late Shri Ved Parkash. He has also filed case against Late Shri Ved Parkash and Smt Kamlesh in different court under section 291, 436 and 419. Consequently, Sumit Gahlot was disowned by Late Shri Ved Prakash on 14 Dec 2018.
Motivated by personal vendetta and ongoing family disputes. Advocate Charu Gahlot and her husband initiated several complaints and RTI applications against Amit Gahlot and his family (details of the complaints and RTI application att as Appx), 2.3 Advocate Charu Gahlot filed her first complaint on 11 May 202, alleging:
2.3.1 Lt Col Amit Gahlot has made dependent card for his parents fraudulently.Page 4 of 9
2.3.2 Misuse of uniform by accompanying his mother to SDM court The reply on the above complaint has already been submitted by Lt Col Amit Gahlot vide their letter No Reply/2023/01 dt 17 July 2023 directly addressed to Advocate Charu Gahot under info to DGMS-3D (Legal) and OIC Legal Cell, Base Hospital Delhi Cantt (copy of reply attached).
2.4 Late Shri Ved Prakash, father of Lt Col Amit Gahlot, served in the Delhi Transport Corporation from 01 Feb 1983 to 30 Sep 1993, opted for voluntary retirement after 10 years of service Since he did not complete 20 years, he was ineligible for pension.
However, he was given a nominal pension of Rs. 1275/- month under a welfare scheme. which was not disclosed by him to his son Lt Col Amit Gahlot.
2.5 Lt Col Amit Gahlot inadvertently made dependent card of parents keeping in mind that his parents incomes are well within the definition of dependency.
2.6 The officer has clarified that his mother Smt Kamlesh is one of the party in a case filed in SDM court. Since, the SDM court is in Najafgarh which in route from officer's duty station to his home station. The officer was accompanying his old mother Smt Kamlesh to appearing in the SDM court. He was not present in uniform with any intent to influence proceedings.
2.7 Advocate Charu Gahlot has not represented any disagreement with the reply of Lt Col Amit Gahlot and after three months she has filed an RTI application dated 06 October 2023, the CPIO and the First Appellant authority of Base hospital Delhi Cantt has denied the information under section 8 (1) (1) of RTI Act-2005. As the information asked pertain to the personal grievances pertaining to family dispute, motivated with the personal vengeance and have no large public interest.
In this regard Hon'ble CIC is drawn to the Apex Court Judgement in the matter of Dr Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Information Commission and Office Memorandum of Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training no 1/7/2009-IR dt 01 Jun Page 5 of 9 2009 and No 11/2/2013-IR (Pt.) df 14 Aug 2013. In that Hon'ble Court emphasized that the RTI Act is not intended to be misused for pursuing personal vendettas, grievances or to harass individuals.
3. It is further submitted that the complaints filled by wife of Mr Sumit Gahlot and RTI request by Advocate Charu Gahlot are personnel in nature and do not hold any large public interest. The information asked through RTI and complaints against Lt Col Amit Gahlot seems motivated by family property dispute.
4. 4 It is humbly submitted to Hon'ble CIC that the appellant Advocate Charu Gahlot and her husband Sumit Gahlot are habitual complainants and RTI activists who are purposefully trying to create disturbance in the functioning of office work at Base Hospital Delhi Cantt. Base Hospital Delhi Cantt is one of the busiest tertiary hospitals with basic and super specialty facility having bed strength of 1000 and daily OPD footfall of 6000 to 7000 and approximately 800-900 in patients per day. She is an advocate, keeps filing complaint against Lt Col Amit Gahlot and his wife, who is an elder brother of Sumit Gahlot husband of Advocate Charu Gahlot. Due to these complaints and RTI activities, the office of Base Hosp Delhi Cantt is busy preparing replies, which hampers the effective functioning of daily routine work of Base Hosp Delhi Cantt.
5. Hence, the Hon'ble CIC is requested to direct appellant Advocate Charu Gahlot and her husband Sumit Gahlot to refrain in the future from unnecessary filing of complaints and RTI application to the CPIO Base Hosp Delhi Cantt."
8. The Respondent, while defending their case inter-alia submitted that they have informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant as per her RTI application.
Decision:
9. The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant Appeal was non-furnishing of information by the CPIO on the RTI application of the Appellant. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, Page 6 of 9 observes that the Respondent has not provided complete information to the Appellant, as the latter in her RTI application categorically asked for the action taken/status on her representation/complaint. But action taken has not been informed to the Appellant as per her RTI application.
10. The Commission is of the view that the broad outcome of the action taken on the application/or status of the representation/complaint should have been informed to the Appellant under the RTI Act (as sought in the RTI application). Further, it is noted that no larger public interest is involved in the matter.
11. The Commission observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions Page 7 of 9 are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest.
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
12. In view of the above ratio, the Respondent is directed to inform the Appellant, the status of action taken on her representation/complaints (as mentioned in the RTI application) as on date of RTI application and its present status. If the said application/complaint/representation has already been disposed of, then the broad outcome should be provided to the Appellant, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. If the information sought pertains to some other department, then the Respondent is directed to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned official who should be the deemed PIO in the present case w.r.t the information sought in his RTI application and provide information to the Appellant, free of cost.
Page 8 of 914. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Commandant, Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt - 110010 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)