##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2025/108247

Sanjay Bhardwaj ….अपीलकता(cid:330) /Appellant

VERSUS बनाम

The CPIO ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Delhi Cantonment Board, Engineering Branch, Sadar Bazar,

Delhi Cantt .- 110010

Date of Hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of Decision : 31.07.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal:

RTI application filed on : 28.11.2024 CPIO replied on : 22.01.2025 First appeal filed on : 23.01.2025 First Appellate Authority’s : 30.01.2025

order

Second Appeal dated : 17.03.2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application on 28.11.2024 seeking the following information :

CIC/DODEF/A/2025/108247 Page 1 of 6

1 / 7

“Sir, please refer details below and kindly provide reply to the details as follows:

1) Please refer my complaint dated 24.07.2024 in subject matter FOLLOW UP OF INACTION ON THE PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS RELATED TO ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION, ENCROACHMENTS CARRIED OUT IN EAST MEHRAM NAGAR sent via email to the CEO Delhi Cantonment Board Deihi cantt. PI provide status report in the

above said.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 22.01.2025 stating as under:

“SUB: SEEKING INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 Reference your RTI Letter No. Nil dated 28.11.2024.

This office on your similar complaints has already requested NSG to take action against encroachment and unauthorised construction under PPE Act 1971 as the land is classified as B-1 land under the

management of NSG.

Sh. Kapil Goyal Chief Executive Officer Delhi Cantonment Board Delhi Cantt. -110010.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 23.01.2025.

The FAA vide its order on 30.01.2025 replied to appellant stating as under:

“ORDER

Facts:

1) The Appellant, vide online RTI Registration No. CBDLH/R/E/24/00345, dated 28.11.2024, had asked for certain

information under the RTI Act, 2005.

2) The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), vide his letter No. DCB/8/Engg/RTI/2024-25/620-551 dated 22.01.2025, had replied to

the RTI application.

3) The appellant, vide online RTI Appeal Registration No. CBDLH/A/E/25/00003 dated 23.01.2025, had filed the first appeal

CIC/DODEF/A/2025/108247 Page 2 of 6

2 / 7

before the appellate authority on the ground of incomplete, misleading or false information by the CPIO.

Hearing:

4) Sh. Sanjay Bhardwaj was absent on the date of the hearing, i.e., 29.01.2025.

5) Sh. Sanjay Bhardwaj was absent on the date of the hearing, i.e., 29.01.2025.

Decision:

6) I have heard the submissions made by the CPIO and have also examined the records presented before me and have also noted the appellant's written submission dated 27.01.2025 received through email vide diary No. 961 dated 28.01.2025. The CPIO has provided an appropriate reply, and no intervention is required by the

appellate authority. Hence, the case is disposed of.”

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. The Appellant submitted a Written Submission before the Commission on 23.07.2026 that the CPIO violated the statutory timeline under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by furnishing a reply on 23.01.2025 (after a delay of 55 days) to the RTI application dated 28.11.2024, without offering any justification. Further, the information sought pertained to the follow-up action and records concerning illegal construction and encroachments in East Mehram Nagar, as raised in his email dated 24.07.2024. The CPIO’s response merely stating that a request had been made to the NSG was cryptic, evasive, and failed to disclose specific records of action taken by the Respondent Public Authority. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to apply its mind to the specific grounds raised in the First Appeal and summarily upheld the CPIO’s reply through a non-speaking order.The Appellant prayed that the