Central Information Commission
Parminder Singh vs Indian Army on 5 September, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2021/118560
In the matter of
Parminder Singh
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
RTI Cell, Addl. DG AE
G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan,
Gate No-4, IHQ of MoD (Army)
New Delhi - 110011
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/09/2020 CPIO replied on : 06/01/2021 First appeal filed on : 25/01/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal filed on : 19/04/2021 Date of Hearing : 05/09/2022 Date of Decision : 05/09/2022 The following were present: Appellant : Present over intra VC Respondent: Lt Col. Nilesh Ingle, CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
i. How many FIR(s)/ complaint(s) had been filed against Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala Khalsa, during his life time? Provide the certified copies thereof. ii. How many persons from general public were killed/ died during the operation of Blue Star held on 06/06/1984 and how many of them were compensated monetarily by the Punjab Govt / Govt of India? Provide their names and addresses.1
iii. How many employees / Sewadars / Granthi / Head Granthi or other officials were killed/ died during the operation of Blue Star held on 06.06.1984 and how many of them were compensated monetarily by the Punjab Govt/ Govt of India? Provide their names and addresses. iv. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not given to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 06.01.2021. He also referred to his written submissions dated 30.08.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 06.01.2021 wherein for points no. 1 to 4, 6, 7 & 9 it was stated that the information was not available with them. During the hearing, the CPIO also informed that they had sought assistance from other Sections as well to find out if the desired information was available with them or not, but no such information was available with anyone. For the rest of the points, the information was rightly denied u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply, hence, no relief can be given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
2
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3