Central Information Commission
Anand Singh Chauhan vs Military Engineer Services on 22 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MESER/C/2024/642503
Anand Singh Chauhan ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Military Engineer Services HQ,
Chief Engineer 31 Zone,
Srinagar, Badami Bagh, Cantt
Srinagar Pin Code 190001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.08.2025
Date of Decision : 22.08.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 28.08.2024
First appeal filed on : NIL
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.05.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Please refer to incidence occurs:- Threatened and Human Right Violation of Defence Civilian Employees of your Establishment on dated 03 May 2024.Page 1 of 9
INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005 SECTION 6(1), 6(3) & 5(4) Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005 to me.
1 Kindly provide a recording of CCTV camera of Main Gate on the day and time of incident by Col Jogeshwar Kar, ACE HQ Chief Engineer 31 Zone.
2 Kindly provide the details of action taken upon Col Jogeshwar Kar about such undisciplined activity by Arms Force Officials with Defence Civilian in CI CT Area.
Truth about the ACTION must be known, Truth about the INACTION must be known, Truth about PROHIBITED ACTION must be known, Mysterious are the ways of action.
India-Vigilant, India-Prosperous The worst disease in the world today is corruption and there is a cure: Transparency."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 28.08.2024 stating as under:
"It is duly informed that the above information falls under the preview of para 8(g) & (h) of RTI Act 2005 accordingly information as sought cannot be shared"
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated NIL. The FAA order is not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
5. A written submission dated 29.07.2025 (copy marked to the Respondent) has been filed by the Complainant, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"माननीय सच ू ना आयु त महोदय, म, आनंद सं ह चौहान, वतमान म सै य अ भयंता सेवा (MES) म कायरत एक सरकार कमचार , यह !नवेदन करता हूँ #क यह मामला न केवल RTI अ%ध!नयम, 2005 के Page 2 of 9 उ(लंघन से जुड़ा है , बि(क यह एक सरकार कमचार के मौ लक मानवा%धकार. और ग1रमा के हनन से भी संब2ध है ।
1. मानवा%धकार. क4 वैधा!नक र5ा का दायरा भारत के सं6वधान क4 78तावना और अनु9छे द 14, 19 (1) (a), 21, तथा 32 के तहत 7<येक नाग1रक कोः समानता का अ%धकार (Right to Equality) अ भ>यि त क4 8वतं?ता (Freedom of Expression) जीवन और >यि तगत 8वतं?ता का अ%धकार (Right to Life and Dignity) 6वधा!नक उपचार का अ%धकार (Right to Constitutional Remedy) 7ाAत है , जो#क इस मामले म 7<य5 Cप से 7भा6वत हुए ह।
RTI अ%ध!नयम, 2005, इन अ%धकार. का >यावहा1रक Cप है , जो नाग1रक. को शासन म पारद शता क4 माँग करने का औजार 7दान करता है । सच ू ना न दे ना या जानबूझकर रोकना, इन मौ लक अ%धकार. का उ(लंघन है , जो मानव अ%धकार. क4 सावभौ मक घोषणा (UDHR, 1948) क4 भावना के 6वH2ध है , 6वशेषकरः IMATION UDHR Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information..."
2. काय8थल पर ग1रमा और सुर5ा का अ%धकार सरकार कमचार भी नाग1रक ह और उ ह काय8थल पर सJमान और सुर5ा 7ाAत होना बाKहए। मेरे 2वारा मांगी गई सच ू ना जो Defence स6व लयन कमचा1रय. के साथ अMवद >यवहार और सै य ह%थयार. से भयभीत करने से जुड़ी थी सीधा मानव ग1रमा और काय8थल पर सरु 5ा के अ%धकार से संबं%धत है ।
राNO य मानवा%धकार आ योग (NHRC) और ILO Convention No. 190 (Workplace Violence and Harassment) के अनस ु ार, 7<येक कमचार को भयमु त, सJमानजनक और !नNप5 वातावरण म काय करने का अ%धकार है ।
3. कानूनी समथन और या!यक मा यता माननीय सवQ9च यायालय ने भी सूचना के अ%धकार को Article 21 के तहत "Right to Life and Dignity" का अ भ न अंग माना है , उदाहरणाथ:
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975)-People have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way..."Page 3 of 9
4. मेर ि8थ!त और शकायत का सार मने Kदनांक 07 मई 2024 को आरट आई आवेदन दायर #कया था. िजसम CCTV फुटे ज माँगा गया था।
7थम अपील य 7ा%धकार 2वारा सच ू ना दे ने का आदे श पा1रत #कया गया, #क तु उसके पMचात आदे श क4 अवहेलना क4 गई, जो 8पNट Cप सेः IRTI अ%ध!नयम क4 धारा 20 के अंतगत दं डनीय है .
तथा सरकार कमचार के मानवा%धकार. का दमन है ।
5. मानवा%धकार र5क के Cप म मेर भू मका म न केवल एक कमचार हूँ, बि(क एक Human Rights Defender (HRD) के Cप म अपने दा!य<व. का !नवहन कर रहा हूँ।
संयु त राNO क4 घोषणा (UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, 1998) के अनस ु ारः "Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights... इस दा!य<व का !नवहन करते हुए, मने 7शास!नक XNटाचार, धमक4 और पारद शता के अभाव को उजागर #कया है।
6. 7ाथना मा यवर से आYह है #क कृपया इस 7करण को मानवा%धकार उ(लंघन क4 [िNट से गंभीरता से ल, संबं%धत CPIO और FAA के 6वH2ध RTI अ%ध!नयम क4 धारा 20 के अंतगत दं डा<मक कारवाई पर 6वचार कर, और यह सु!निMचत कर #क जानकार 7दान क4 जाए तथा काय8थल पर भयमु त वातावरण बना रहे ।
7. !नNकष "एक ईमानदार समाज क4 नींव पारद शता और जवाबदे ह है ।"
XNटाचार का सबसे बड़ा शकार सरकार कमचार क4 ग1रमा और आ<मसJमान होता है। जब सं8थाएं अपने संवध ै ा!नक उ\रदा!य<व. क4 उपे5ा करती ह, तब नाग1रक. को खड़ा होना पड़ता है ।
भारत सतक - भारत समु2ध, हर काय दे श के नाम"
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 4 of 9
Complainant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Vivek Jain, Director (Personnel) Legal, on behalf of Shri M Hemachandra, FAA present through video conference.
6. Proof of having served a copy of complaint on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 23.09.2024 is not available on record. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Complainant while reiterating the contents of his averred written submission stated that the information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent under Section 8 (1)(g) and 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act without proper justification. He stated that he is working with the MES as a serving employee and was charge sheeted once. He contended that information sought relates to violation of human right vis-à-vis unequal treatment at the workplace for which he along with his colleagues approached NHRC by filing a complaint, however, his complaint was dismissed. He prayed the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide complete information.
8. The Respondent reiterated the contents of his stand for denial of information under Section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act and further stated that the FAA disposed of the First Appeal vide order dated 25.11.2024 by denying the information under Section 8 (1)(a) and Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act.
9. The Commission noted that the Complainant till the date of hearing never disclosed the fact that he had approached NHRC which has dismissed his petition. Thus, he has not approached the Commission with clean hands.
Decision
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that instant case is a complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC
864.
11. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon close scrutiny of contents of RTI Application it is observed that despite queries raised Page 5 of 9 by the Complainant in the RTI Applications is vague which do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet, the Respondent made an effort to provide a reasonable reply which is in the spirit of the RTI Act.
12. Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any penal action against the CPIO due to the fact that adequate reply has been given by the Respondent and the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant Complaint upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bonafide interest of the Appellant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the applicant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Appellants before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus, leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
13. No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO in this case. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"...61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot Page 6 of 9 automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
14. Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter.
15. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 70 cases of the same Complainant against same and related Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In addition, 9 number of Second Appeals/Complaints are also listed for today's hearing. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information repeatedly. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
16. It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter- productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life Page 7 of 9 imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
17.Therefore, the Commission counsels the Complainant not to file repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."Page 8 of 9
18. The action of the Complainant is harrasive in nature against the Respondent Public Authority wasting public resources. Hence, the Appellant is advised ONCE AGAIN to make sensible use of his Right to Information in future.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Military Engineer Services HQ, Chief Engineer 31 Zone, Srinagar, Badami Bagh, Cantt Srinagar Pin Code 190001 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)