Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3110
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Laxmi Dhar Bhuyan – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Artillery Records, Nasik Road Camp – Respondent
CIC/DODEF/A/2024/107067 | CIC/DODEF/A/2024/107068 | CIC/DODEF/A/2024/107069 | CIC/DODEF/A/2024/121500
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Laxmi Dhar Bhuyan
For the Respondents: Artillery Records Representative
The Right to Information Act mandates accessible information; however, it does not obligate public authorities to interpret documents or provide information that requires inference beyond existing records.
Headnote:(1) The judgments relate to the examination of RTI applications by the Commission and the responses from the Public Information Officer (PIO). The court analyzed the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the context of the various queries raised by the Appellant in multiple appeals concerning alleged breaches and grievances related to military procedures and actions taken by superior officers. It further emphasizes that queries must comply with stipulated definitions and confines of the RTI Act. (2) The primary issues put forth revolved around the interpretation and clarity of responses relating to the service, rights violations, and claims of wrongful conduct by commanding authority. The Commission highlighted that the CPIO is not obliged to create or interpret information beyond what is held within official records. (3) Ultimately, the court upheld the PIO's responses and reaffirmed the legal framework governing RTI queries.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti applications must adhere to legal definitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. public authorities have obligations but not to provide created or inferred information. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. appeals are dismissed based on the sufficiency of pio responses. (Para 30) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2022 (offline) seeking the following information:
“COMPLAINT No 4902/Complaint dt 27 Dec 2021 with regard to unnecessary harassment, using criminal force against man in uniform, insubordination and obstruction, ill-treating subordinate in open forum, misuse of power, criminal intimidation.
(A) Please forward a copy of action taken Report AS RAISED VIDE LT COLONEL LAXMI DHAR BHUYAN APPLICATION BEARING COMPLAINT No 4902/Complaint dt 27 Dec 2021 with regard to unnecessary harassment, using criminal force against man in uniform, insubordination and obstruction, ill-treating subordinate in open forum, misuse of power, criminal intimidation.
(B) Please forward copies of morning PT parade State duly narrating medical category of all the officers/JCOs/OR wef 13 Jul 12019 to 04 Jan 2022.
(C) Please give a copy of authority under which it has been clarified that Colonel Habeebu Rehuman PM is Commanding Officer of Arty Records, whereas MS Branch posting order says Colonel Records of Arty Records.
(D) Please give me a copy of authority under which power has been vested with Colonel Habeebu Rehuman PM to issue counselling to a Lt Colonel.
(E) Please give me a copy of authority under which power has been vested with Colonel Habeebu Rehuman PM to over rule decisions of duly constituted medical boardie Ex PPG and prolonged standing duties and to declare absence from PT Parade and what is the authority with Maj Om Prakash to detail an officer as Centre duty officer having been suffered due to CALCANIUM FRACTURE RTA AND EXEMPTED prolonged standing duties. Incase of fire, terrorist strike or other situation during night can the same officer run and control over the situation. Moreover only trained SL Cadre.
(F) Please give me copy of authority under which power has been vested with Colonel Habeebu Rehuman PM to allow Maj Om Prakash to continue as appointment of Adm Offr followed by Adjt by violating Army HQ letter No A/359311/MP-8(I of R)(b) dt 19 Apr 2017.
(G) Please give me copy of authority to continue Commanding Position or continue present appointment of sensitive nature as per Army HQ letter No A/359311/MP-8(I of R)(b) dt 19 Apr 2017, against whom severe allegations with prima-facie has been established.
(H) Please give me copy of authority under which power has been vested with Colonel Habeebu Rehuman PM to allow Maj Om Prakash to continue as appointment of Adm Offr followed by Adjt by violating Army HQ policy on the subject.
(J) Please give me copy of authority under which power has been vested with Colonel Habeebu Rehuman PM to excuse Maj Om Prakash and Maj Anil Kumar for Centre Duty Officer and other Board of Officer as SOP for Centre duty officer says CRO to RO all will perform Centre duty officer expect medical restrictions.
(k) Please give me copy of authority under which power has been vested with Arty Records to run wet Canteen like shop as mentioned in my Complaint by using Govt manpower and also give me expenditure status and profit details with full balance sheet wef 01 Jan 2019 to 04 Jan 2022.”
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 17.02.2022 stating as under:
“(a) Para 3 (iii) (a). No complaint is held on the records.
(b) Para 3 (iii) (b). manpower of the Army, The info is sensitive is nature related to Trg/ Parade/hence, can not be provide as per Para 8 (1) (a) of RTI Act 2005.
(C) Para 3 (iii) (c). Extract copy of Para 324 of Docu Procedure 1992 is enclosed herewith.
(d) Extract copy of Para 327 of Regulations for the Para 3 (iii) (d). Army 1987 is enclosed herewith.
(e) Para 3 (iii) (e). No specific information is asked by you. Authority vide which Army personnel are excused from P
