Central Information Commission
Amit Hemraj Gala vs Cbi on 12 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/120951
Amit Hemraj Gala ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Asst Inspr. Genl. Of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Policy Division, RTI Cell, 27,
North Block, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/02/2023
Date of Decision : 30/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :16/11/2021
CPIO replied on :15/12/2021
First appeal filed on :13/01/2022
First Appellate Authority's :12/02/2022
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :30/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"Reference:- Complaint letter dated on 24-12-2019 and 14.01-2020 against Shri. G.S. Thakur, SIO DRI for the Offence of Extortion, money laundering and forgery to 1 the tune of Rs. 2 Cores and other offences which are cognizable offence under Indian Penal Code. Prevention Of Corruption Act and PMLA Act. letter dated on 24- 12-2019 and 14-01-2020.
Information Required.
1) With reference to the above-mentioned complaint, whether the offence disclosed was cognizable or non cognizable?
2) Registration number of the above complaint.
3) The stage of Investigation of the above mentioned Complaint letter dated on 24/12/2019 and 14/01/2020.
4) If not registered the Complaint then the reasons for not registering the above complaint, despite disclosure of cognizable and serious offence.
5) Whether as per the CBI Manual, after receiving numerous complaints against GS Thakur, whether his name was included in the Agreed List of Suspected Officers, if not please provide the necessary reason
6) Whether the Ashish Verma, ADG, DM, Ahmedabad, Deputed at the at the time of complaint in the said office, intimated any communication in respect of the complaints received by him in respect of G. S thakur and the action initiated by him?
7) Whether the Office CBI, where the complaint was filed, have hied any intimation to the CVC for appropriate action.
The period to which the information required from 24.12.2019 to till today." The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.12.2021 stating as under:
"It is to be intimated that, in your RTI application, you have made some queries aimed at eliciting the comments/views of CPIO thereon, which is not covered by the definition of 'information' under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is also to be informed that vide Notification F. No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India, issued u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005, the Central Bureau of Investigation has been put at SI. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to Right to Information Act, 2005, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act. The 2 information sought by you, vide your RTI application referred above, does not pertain to any specific case of corruption or violation of human rights; hence, your RTI application is accordingly disposed off."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2022. FAA's order, dated 12.02.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Genevieve Lobo through video conference. Respondent: Rajesh Bhonsle, DSP & Rep. of CPIO along with Raman Kumar Shukla present through intra-video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant narrated the backdrop of the information sought for in the RTI Application which was a complaint of extortion, money laundering, forgery amounting to almost Rs. 2 crores against G S Thakur and others who were a part of crime syndicate and amassed disproportionate assets through only laundering. She further stated that since the information sought for relates to an allegation of corruption, the exemption of Section 24 or deeming the RTI Application to be outside Section 2(f) is not appropriate.
The CPIO reiterated that the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to begin with, besides the averred complaint is not found in the records of CBI but appears to be filed with the DRI so the question of providing any information does not even arise at the CBI's end.
Decision:
The Commission having heard the instant matter in continuation of File No. CIC/DGVCE/A/2022/121168, which was based on the same complaint references filed against Directorate General of Vigilance as well as its Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, wherein it is observed that the permissible information regarding the action taken on the averred complaints has been informed to the Appellant, finds little scope for discussion in the instant case. It is brought to the attention of the Appellant that he has been suitably advised about the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the 3 RTI Act in File No. CIC/DGVCE/A/2022/121168, which squarely applies to the instant case as well.
Moreover, a bare perusal of the facts on record in the instant case suggests that the Appellant has not even mentioned as to whether the averred complaint was filed with CBI or provided any material on record that shows the averred complaints were filed with CBI, which therefore lends credence to the CPIO's additional submission at this stage that the averred complaint is not found in their records.
The above observations render the instant appeal bereft of merit.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4