Central Information Commission
Sh Md Obedullah vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 17 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/647368
Sh Md Obedullah ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Lokpal of India, RTI Cell, 6,
Vasant Kunj Institutional
Area, Phase-II, New
Delhi-110070. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/05/2023
Date of Decision : 08/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 21/02/2022,28/04/2022, 12/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 16/06/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 30/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"The following documents (certified copies) mentioned in Lokpal order communicated vide letter no. C-12016/52/2020-Lokpal/432, dt.12.3.21 (copy enclosed) may please be provided by post :1
1. A copy of inquiry report of Ministry of Home Affairs (submitted to Lokpal vide letter dt. 15.10.20).
2. A copy of inquiry report of Enforcement Directorate (submitted to Lokpal vide letter dt. 11.2.21).
3. A copy of full bench order dt. 5.10.20.
4. A copy of full bench order dt. 11.12.20."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 21.02.2022 stating as under:
"With reference to your application under the RTI Act,2005, the pointwise information may be read as under:-
Point No. 1-4:- it is hereby informed that the requisite information spread over 505 pages. You are requested to deposit Rs. 1010/- @ Rs. 2/- per page as per the provisions under the RTI Rules,2012 & RTI Act,2005, through either Indian Postal Order/Banker Cheque /Demand Draft in favor of the Pay & Account Officer, Lokpal of India, Delhi."
Further, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.04.2022 stating as under:-
"Since the further fee has been received now, therefore, the desired information (copies of Inquiry Report of Ministry of Home Affairs and Enforcement Directorate) w.r.t. Complaint No. C-12016/52/2020 is ready, in which you were complainant.
In view of the above, the desired information w.r.t. Ministry of Home Affairs is attached herewith.
However, in revisiting the concerned records, it was observed that Directorate of Enforcement has provided the desired information to the Lokpal of India in Complaint No. 52/2020 with the remarks "Secret." Therefore, Third Party Information Notice is being issued to the concerned, as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. After the receipt of the confirmation from the Third Party (that the information can be disclosed), the desired information will be sent accordingly."2
Furthermore, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 12.05.2022 stating as under:-
"With reference to your letter dated Nil received on 26.04.2022 (In response to this office letter dated 21.02.2022, w.r.t. your online RTI application dated 19.02.2022) along with the Demand Draft (DD) for Rs 1,010/- as the fee for the obtaining the requisite records, As requested by you, the copy of the desired information w.r.t. Ministry of Home Affairs was sent to you, vide this office letter dated 28.04.2022.
Further, on perusal of your RTI aforesaid application, it was observed that you were a complainant in Complaint No. 52/2020 and sought the report of the Directorate of Enforcement submitted to the Lokpal of India in respect of Complaint No. 52/2020, which was a Third-Party information. Therefore, Notice was issued to the concerned, as per Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 (Act), Now, the Directorate of Enforcement, vide their letter dated 09/06/2022 has not given its consent to the disclosure of the copy of the Inquiry Report due to ongoing investigation.
Keeping in view of the above, copy of the Inquiry Report of the Directorate of Enforcement cannot be provided, being exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. Further, the Directorate of Enforcement is an organization, which is exempted under section 24 of the Act, as informed by them.
In view of the above, the Demand Draft bearing No. 501190 dated 21.04.2022 for an amount of Rs, 1,010/- (Rs. One thousand Ten), sent by you is returned herewith."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 30.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by M H Qasmi though video conference. Respondent: Rajeev Ranjan Khushwaha, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.3
The Rep. of the Appellant argued against the denial of the ED report by the CPIO and emphasised on the following points:
"The society "Al-Markazul Islami" Delhi is in receipt of foreign funds of more than Rs. 10 Lakhs since 1980's. The trust / society "CPS International" Delhi is also in receipt of foreign funds of more than Rs. 10 Lakhs since its inception. However, there has been misuse and diversion of funds of these societies for personal benefit of individuals, as indicated in my Complaint to the Hon'ble Lokpal. It is important to emphasize that the alleged money is public money and as the matter pertains to public society, definitely there exists "larger public interest". The Appellant intends to pursue the fight against corruption before any other competent authority or Hon'ble High Court and thus needs the information sought through RTI from the Hon'ble Lokpal."
The CPIO submitted that the available information has been provided to the Appellant and the ED report has been denied based on the response received from ED as has been already informed to the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant is advised to approach ED directly for the said report.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO has provide permissible information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It is not the case that the outcome of the action taken on the Appellant's complaint was withheld from him or he was not made privy to the findings of MHA & ED as the gist of the reports of both these agencies were categorically stated in the order of the Lokpal dated 03.03.2021. Further, the arguments against the claim of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act tendered by the Appellant in his detailed written submissions cannot be decided on merits as the ED is not the Respondent in the instant case. As such due to the exempt status accorded to ED under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, the Commission does not find it expedient to refer the instant matter to ED at this stage.
The Appellant is at liberty to pursue the matter afresh with ED as advised by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5