Central Information Commission
Commodore Lokesh K Batra Retired vs Department Of Ex-Servicemen Welfare on 4 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/DEXSW/A/2023/604851
Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.) ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. The CPIO Department of Ex-
Servicemen Welfare, D & (WE),
Room No. 221, 'B' Wing, Sena
Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
Date of Hearing : 02.02.2026
Date of Decision : 04.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 19.10.2022
First appeal filed on : 15.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : NA
2nd Appeal dated : 26.01.2023
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"(a) Subject name and reference Numbers of File / Files of DESW, on which (MoD) S.R.O. 27. dated 09 June, 2021 and said 'The Gazette of India' dated July 31, 2021 on the subject "Statutory Rules and Orders issued by the Ministry of Defence" were processed.
(b) Provide me true copies of complete set of relevant documents including Notings of File/File(s) on which (MoD) S.R.O. 27. Dt. 09 June, 2021 and said 'The Gazette of India' dated July 31, 2021 on the subject "Statutory Rules and Orders issued by the Ministry of Defence" were processed.
(c) Please timely intimate by Email the total 'Information Cost" to be paid by me so that it can be paid thru RTI Portal. Also note that after maximum stipulated period of 30 Days the Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 will apply.
The above information (signed & scanned B&W-pdf copy) may kindly be provided to me by E-Mail on my two Email IDs:
[email protected] and [email protected]."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.10.2022 stating as under:
"(1) Sub Name: Provisioning of Aadhar Authentication user Agency (AUA)/ Services for ECHS (2) Reference No. of File/ Files of DOESW: 18(122)/2020-D(WE/Res-1) on which (MoD) S.R.O. 27. dated 09 June 2021, and said The Gazette of India' dated July 31, 2021 on the subject "Statutory Rules and Orders issued by the Ministry of Defence" had been processed in the above file under above mentioned ref no. (3) As per Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, the term "information" carries one item named as "document". As per your query true copies of relevant documents shall be given to you in exercise of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which includes Noting of File/Files and said "The Gazette of India' dated 31 July 2021 on the subject "Statutory Rules & Orders issued by MoD", were processed. Therefore true copies of Noting are forwarded herewith. However, the term "relevant" is beyond the scope of definition of information as per sec 2(f). Therefore, being non-specific no other information is given."Page 2 of 5
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA order not on the record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground that CPIO has given strange reasons on the use of term "relevant" by the appellant and that while CPIO has provided the copies of file noting from page 1 to 6 and page 8-9 and perhaps due to oversight page no. 7 was not found attached and that copies of correspondence from the file was not provided.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. L. Fimate, CPIO/US
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The Appellant was not present during the hearing, despite the service of notice at his given address. Further no written submission has been received from the appellant in response to hearing notice.
7. The respondent, while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application had been duly replied to the appellant on 19.10.2022 and information sought was provided to the appellant. He further informed that in response to the Commission's hearing notice dated 06.01.2026, the respondent has shared required enclosures to the appellant on email dated 21.01.2026, which has also been acknowledged by the appellant saying that he is in USA and will not be able to attend the hearing.
With regard to the interpretation of the term "relevant" in the CPIO's reply dated 19.10.2022, he argued that same was mentioned strictly in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. Written submissions dated 21.01.2026 filed by the respondent Mr. L. Fimate, CPIO/US is taken on record which states that the sought information has already been provided on 19.10.2022 and same is also enclosed with the written submissions, a copy of which is also endorsed to the appellant at his given address and email IDs.
Page 3 of 5Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties present and perusal of the records and written submissions, notes that although the respondent CPIO claims to have replied to the RTI application within the stipulated time, the appellant had specifically raised a grievance regarding incomplete supply of documents.
The Commission takes note of the respondent's written submissions dated 21.01.2026, wherein it has been stated that the complete information sought by the appellant has already been furnished and the same has also been enclosed with the written submissions. The Commission observes that a copy of the written submissions has also been supplied to the appellant vide e-mail dated 21.01.2026. The Commission found no malafide in para 2 (b) in CPIO's reply dated 19.10.2022.
In view of the above, and taking note of the fact the information sought has been provided, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted. However, the Commission deprecates the delay in providing complete information and cautions the respondent CPIO for delay on his part.
The Commission also take note of the fact that FAA has also prima-facie failed to decide the instant First Appeals and as such abdicated its statutory duty under the RTI Act to decide the instant First Appeal, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant. In view of the above, the Commission cautions the respective FAA's for not deciding the first appeals.
With the above observation and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
SD/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 04.02.2026 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Col Prabhat Kumar) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, D & (WE), Room No. 221, 'B' Wing, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011 (2) Commodore Lokesh K Batra (Retd.) Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)