Central Information Commission
Sayed Mohd Ahmad Kazmi vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 9 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DIREN/A/2017/171694-BJ
Mr. Sayed Mohd Ahmad Kazmi
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate of Enforcement
6th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.11.2018
Date of Decision : 09.11.2018
Date of RTI application 12.07.2017
CPIO's response 31.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 26.08.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 14.09.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 13.10.2017
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points regarding the procedure and criteria based on which cases were registered under the PMLA at Enforcement Directorate, copy of relevant documents, files with regard to above stated subject-matter, whether there was any written procedure prescribed for initiating enquiry and further proceedings for a PMLA case and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 31.07.2017 informed the Appellant that their Organization was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the Act. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 14.09.2017, upheld the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 3
Appellant: Mr. Sayed Mohd Ahmad Kazmi along with Mr. T. A. Kazmi;
Respondent: Mr. Vipin, APIO;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the information sought by him had not been furnished. The Commission was informed that this matter had been sub-judice with the Additional Session Judge, Patiala House Court since 2011 but the list of charges framed against him had not been concretized as yet. A reference was made to the decision of High Court of Delhi in the case of CPIO, Intelligence Bureau vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (W. P. (C) No. 5524/2016) and in the case of CPIO vs. CJ Karira (WP (C) No. 7439/2012. In addition he drew the attention of the Commission to para 15 of the decision of the Commission in Gulab Singh Rana vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank and DSP, CBI in CIC/SH/A/2015/001081 dated 21.06.2016, contesting the reply of the Respondent not to disclose information being governed under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. It was emphasized that it was his right to access to justice and his being wrongfully implicated tantamount to breach of his human rights. In its reply, the Respondent relied upon the response of the CPIO / FAA. In addition, in its written submission dated 05.11.2018 it was further submitted that as per provisions under Section 24 r/w Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005, the RTI Act, 2005 does not apply to their organization. A reference was drawn to the judgment of High Court of Delhi in the matter of Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya WP (C) No. 345/ 2018 it was therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal. A copy of the written submission was also hand delivered to the Appellant during the hearing.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observed that the Directorate of Enforcement was an exempted organization as per Section 24 r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, a reference can be made to the matter of Esab India Limited v. Special Director of Enforcement, WP (C) No. 1138/2010 dated 08.03.2011,wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with a petition challenging the validity of Section 24 read with Second Schedule to the RTI Act, 2005 held as under:
"27. In the case at hand, as far as Section 24 is concerned, it is evincible that the said provision excludes the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule. We have already reproduced the Second Schedule. The petitioner is concerned with the Directorate of Enforcement which comes at serial No. 5 in the Second Schedule.
What has been denied in first part of Section 24 is the intelligence and security organizations. The first proviso adds a rider by stating that an information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human right violations shall not be excluded under the sub- section. Thus, it is understood that information relating to corruption and information pertaining to human rights are not protected. In our considered opinion, the restriction on security and intelligence aspect cannot be scuttled as the same has paramountancy as far as the sovereignty and economic order is concerned. Article 19(1)(2), which deals with reasonable restriction, mentions a reasonable restriction which pertains to security of the State, integrity of India and public order. ."
A reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya WP (C) No. 345/ 2018 dated 19.02.2018 wherein it was held as under:-
"6. Plainly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the expressed language of Section 24(1) of the Act. Section 24(1) of the Act expressly excludes Page 2 of 3 intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the Second Schedule to the Act and, thus, cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of the Act. The only exception carved out from the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act relates to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Undisputedly, the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be categorized as such information.
7. The aforesaid question has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi : 242 (2017) DLT 542, wherein this Court held that an organisation specified in the Second Schedule of the Act was excluded from the purview of the Act.
8. In view of the above, the petition and the pending application are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it is clarified that this would not preclude the respondent from instituting any proceedings that he may be advised against M/s Thomas Cook (India) Limited, if so, entitled in law."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of aforementioned judgments, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 09.11.2018
Page 3 of 3