Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Sud vs Directorate General Defence Estates ... on 11 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIGDE/C/2024/643150
Anil Kumar Sud ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dalhousie Cantonment Board,
District - Chamba, Himachal
Pradesh - 176305 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.11.2025
Date of Decision : 10.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17.08.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 17.08.2024 seeking the following information:
"A representation was made by Anil Kumar Sud to The Station Commander of the Army, Acting as Ex-officio President of the Cantonment Board, Dalhousie Cantonment Board for making a case against Mr. Vinod Mahajan i.e. the nominated for removal as member from the position of the Board member under section 32 & section 34 of Page 1 of 8 the cantonment act, 2006. Please following information in relation to the board membership of Mr. Vinod Mahajan.
Has the Station Commander i.e. LT Col Nautyal acted in accordance with Section 36 of the Cantonment Act 2006 initiated any removal proceedings based on the allegations against Mr. Vinod Mahajan, including but not limited to his involvement in the Board meeting held on 29 August 2023, (reference No CBD L 8 1 Dated 07 Dec 2022)?
Did the acting Station Commander discharge his public duties & reported the conflict of interest of Mr. Vinod Mahajan & his voting in a conflicted matter in violation of Section 32 to the Commander In Chief in accordance with Section 34 Sub-clause 3? If not, then the reasons for not doing the same.
Has the Cantonment Board investigated the allegations of conflict of interest against Mr. Mahajan, particularly in relation to Resolution No. 5 passed in the 29 August 2023 meeting?"
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, CPIO, Dalhousie Cantonment, appeared through video conference.
4. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 26.09.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that point-wise reply/information was received only on 23.10.2025, i.e., after a delay of more than a year from Page 2 of 8 the date of filing the RTI application and that too was not satisfactory. He prayed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO for the inordinate delay.
6. The Respondent CPIO while defending their case inter alia submitted that after receipt of hearing notice, a reply was given to the Complainant vide letter dated 04.11.2025 informing that "No information available in this office with regard to the representation made by Shri Anil Kumar Sud to the Station Commander of Army." As regards the delay in replying to the RTI application, Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, CPIO, Dalhousie Cantonment, has filed a detailed written submission on 07.11.2025, contents of the same are reproduced as under:
1. It is submitted that there was no deliberate or mala fide intent to deny the information sought by the appellant Shri Anil Kumar Sud, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The non-furnishing of replies to some of his RTI applications was purely procedural and circumstantial, owing to extraordinary administrative workload and ongoing legal proceedings involving the same appellant/applicant.
2. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India, vide its letter No. 14(36)/2023 D(Q&C) dated 31st July 2023, constituted a High-Level Committee to examine and implement the Excision of Civil Areas from Cantonment Boards in Himachal Pradesh - specifically Kasauli, Dagshai, Sabathu, Jutogh, Bakloh and Dalhousie Cantonments.
Subsequently, as per the said directive:
A series of meetings were convened under the Chairmanship of the Joint Secretary (L&W), MoD, The Dalhousie Cantonment Board was tasked with preparing and forwarding a detailed proposal for the excision of its civil areas, including mapping, classification of lands, identification of evacuee properties, verification of old grant sites, and Coordination with the Local Military Authorities (LMA) and the State Government.
The first meeting of the Committee was held on 12.09.2023 at South Block, New Delhi, followed by the second meeting on 05.10.2023 and several subsequent communications during 2023-2025, including letters from:
1. Director General Defence Estates (DGDE), New Delhi Page 3 of 8
2. Principal Director, Defence Estates, Western Command, Chandigarh
3. Station Headquarters Dalhousie & Bakloh
4. State Govt of Himachal Pradesh
5. and Local Military Authority (LMA) Each required detailed compliance, data compilation, recce surveys, and preparation of Annexures, land schedules, maps, and status reports.
3. The excision process was a major administrative reform directly involving:
(a) Survey and verification of over 1000 acres of defence and civil land,
(b) Identification and classification of A-1 to B-4 and C lands from GLR,
(c) Verification of expired leases, evacuee properties, and encroachments (including PPE Act proceedings already initiated by the Board),
(d) Preparation of land recce reports and minutes of meetings for onward submission to MoD, DGDE, and State Government,
(e) Assessment of assets and employees to be retained or transferred,
(f) Examination of financial liabilities and Cantonment Fund implications, and Continuous correspondence with higher authorities, including letters dated 06.07.2024, 01.07.2024, and 21.11.2024, issued by PDDE, Western Command and Station HQ Dalhousie & Bakloh.
4. These documents and directions demonstrate that the office of the CEO Dalhousie Cantonment (Public Authority) and staff (All CPIOs) were continuously engaged in this time-bound national-level exercise from mid-2023 through 2025.
5. Given the scale and sensitivity of this excision work, the available manpower was diverted towards completing the MoD-mandated tasks. Consequently, routine administrative and RTI correspondence was delayed unintentionally.
6. Simultaneously, it is respectfully submitted that Shri Anil Kumar Sud, the appellant, had filed and was pursuing multiple legal cases against the Cantonment Board and its officers, including:
Page 4 of 81. CWP No. 1375/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
2. CWP No. 481/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
3. Criminal Revision Petition No. 495/2023 before the Hon'ble District and Sessions Court, Chamba,
7. It is also submitted that, during the relevant period, the Dalhousie Cantonment Board is functioning with severe staff shortages, and two stations are being managed by the meagre staff who are CPIOs also. And these employees were either diverted to the excision task, legal documentation, or were attending proceedings before higher authorities. Thus, the delay in replying to some RTI applications was purely administrative and not intentional.
8. It is respectfully submitted that the Board has always acted in good faith, maintaining transparency and accountability. The office has provided the requested information to the appellant and in case any information is pending, the same will be provided, within a reasonable period as directed by the Commission. It is also assured that no such delay will be caused in future, and we will be more vigilant in furnishing the RTI replies in a time bound manner.
9. Therefore, in light of the above circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly condone the delay, which was unintentional, administrative, and due to exceptional official exigencies and accept the explanation tendered herein and not pass any adverse orders."
Decision
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that reply was provided by the Respondent vide letter dated 04.11.2025. It is undisputed that no reply was provided within 30 days of receipt of the RTI application, as required under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The reply was eventually provided only after receipt of the hearing notice from this Commission.
Page 5 of 88. The Commission observes that the information sought was specific and the Respondent CPIO has replied on 04.11.2025 that "No information available in this office with regard to the representation made by Shri Anil Kumar Sud to the Station Commander of Army." The CPIO took more than a year in giving such a simple reply which is not justifiable merely on the grounds of workload or staff shortage. There was no complexity or third-party involvement necessitating prolonged consultation or verification. Hence, the delay of more than one year in furnishing such routine information is wholly unjustified.
9. It is further observed that other Cantonment Boards such as Kasauli and Bakloh have been furnishing timely replies to various RTI applications of other Applicants similar nature, which clearly indicates that there were no systemic or policy-level constraints preventing compliance in the present case. However, in this instance, the Respondent CPIO has unjustifiably withheld simple and straightforward information for over a year without any plausible reason. The Commission finds such conduct to be indicative of disregard towards the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. The plea advanced by the Respondent that the Complainant has filed multiple legal cases against the Cantonment Board and its officers, cannot be accepted as a valid ground for denying under any circumstances or delaying access to information guaranteed under the RTI Act. The right to information is a statutory right that stands independent of any ongoing litigation. Moreover, the Respondent has not produced any judicial order restraining the Complainant from seeking information under the RTI Act. Therefore, this submission of the Respondent is untenable and rejected.
11. The explanation furnished by the CPIO regarding administrative workload and staff shortage does not constitute a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that administrative inconvenience cannot be accepted as a defence for non- compliance with the statutory obligations under the RTI Act. Further, the Commission notes that the CPIO was not only responsible for providing information but was also the custodian of the records at the relevant time. The failure to respond in a time-bound manner reflects lack of due diligence and disregard for the provisions of the RTI Act, thereby defeating its very objective of transparency and accountability in public authorities.
Page 6 of 812. In light of the above observations, the Commission holds that the conduct of Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, CPIO, Dalhousie Cantonment Board, constitutes a clear violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. His explanation is not found satisfactory or reasonable.
13. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the Commission hereby imposes a penalty of Rs. 750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) on Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, CPIO, Dalhousie Cantonment Board, for failing to furnish the information within the stipulated time. An amount of total Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) shall be deducted from salary of Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, CPIO, Dalhousie Cantonment Board, by the Public Authority by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi and forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The aforesaid penalty amount should reach the Commission by 20.12.2025.
14. The Chief Executive Officer, Dalhousie Cantonment Board and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) are directed to comply with this order.
15. The CPIO shall ensure that RTI applications are dealt with diligently in future and replies are furnished within the time prescribed under the RTI Act.
16. The CEO, Dalhousie Cantonment Board, shall sensitize all concerned officers and staff about timely compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 The First Appellate Authority Office of Cantonment Board Dalhousie Dalhousie Cantt-
District - Chamba, Himachal Pradesh - 176305 The Chief Executive Officer, Dalhousie Cantonment Board District - Chamba, Himachal Pradesh - 176305 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)