Central Information Commission
Mr.Vivek Johri vs Cbdt on 18 April, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26105682
File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000413/RM
Appellant: Shri Vivek Johri, Ahmedabad
Public Authority: Commissioner of IT-III, Surat
Date of Hearing: 17.04.2013
Date of decision: 18.04.2013
Heard today, dated 17.04.2013 through video conferencing.
Appellant is present.
The Public Authority is represented by Shri R.R.Pathak, Commissioner, IT-III,
Surat/AA along with Shri Sunny Abraham, CPIO.
FACTS
Vide RTI dt 10.10.11 appellant had sought information on 7 points relating to Vigilance explanation submitted by the appellant.
2. CPIO vide letter dt 21.10.11, denied the information u/s 8(1)(h) as an investigation was ongoing in the case and quoted two CIC decisions in support of this fact.
3. An appeal was filed on 2.12.11.
4. AA vide order dt 5.1.12, upheld the decision of the CPIO.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. The appellant submitted that a charge sheet had been filed on 28.9.11 and hearing in the case has since started. Appellant wanted copy of the report to defend him. The AA submitted the then CPIO had rightly denied the information u/s 8(1)(h).
DECISION 1
6. The public authority while denying information u/s 8(1)(h) has not mentioned the grounds as to how the information sought, would impede the prosecution of the appellant in the charge sheet filed against him. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgement in the Bhagat Singh case, has construed the said provision of the Act to mean that, in order to claim exemption under the said provisions, the authority withholding the information must disclose satisfactory reasons as to why the disclosure of information would hamper the investigation. In another judgement by the Hon'ble high Court of Delhi in Sudhi Ranjan Senapati Vs Union of India, decided on 5.3.13, similar views have been held.
7. Following the ratio of above judgements, the Commission directs CPIO to relook into the information sought by the appellant and furnish the same within three weeks of receipt of this order. Wherever the information is denied, reasons thereof should be mentioned.
The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy forwarded to :
The Commissioner of Income Tax -III & CPIO (RTI Cell) O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax -III Room No. 424, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Majuragate, Surat -395 001.
The Commissioner of Income Tax -III & FAA, O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax-III Room No. 425, Aayakar Bhawan, Majuragate, Surat.
Shri Vivek Johri Flat No. 404, Type -IV, Aayakar Vihar, Behind Sachin Towers, Annad Nagar Road, Ahmedabad -380015.
(Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar .04.2013 2