Central Information Commission
Vinayak Shripati Karad vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 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/DIREN/A/2022/110860
Vinayak Shripati Karad ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal
Office-II, RTI Cell, Kaiser-I-Hind,
Ground Floor, Currimbhoy Road,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001,
Maharastra .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/02/2023
Date of Decision : 02/02/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 03/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 29/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 05/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"Complaint application dated 07.09.2021 against (1) Prof. Dr. Vishwanath Dadarao Karad, (2) M.L.A. Ramesh Kashiram Karad, (3) Rajesh Kashiram Karad, (4) Kashiram Dadarao Karad, (5) Tulshiram Dadarao Karad, sent by post was 1 received by your office on dated 09.09.2021. Kindly send the information about the said complaint application, about the action taken against the above persons and kindly give all documents in this regard to me."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.12.2021 denying the information under Section 24 of RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2021. FAA's order dated 05.01.2022, 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: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Not present.
The Appellant stated that he had filed a complaint dated 07.09.2021 against the averred third parties under Money Laundering Act; with the alleged disproportionate collection of assets by them by grabbing the Government Land through illegal manner. In this regard, vide impugned RTI Application he has sought action taken report on his complaint; however he is aggrieved by the fact that the information has been denied by the CPIO under the plea of Section 24 of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of information by the CPIO under Section 24 of RTI Act. In this regard, it was noteworthy that that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the material on record does not substantially suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision is reproduced as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--2
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
In this context, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption...." [Emphasis Supplied] The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.
Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission adversely view the absence of the present CPIO during hearing without intimating any reason thereof which only shows his disregard to the proceedings of the Commission which is in violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
In view of the above, the present CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai is hereby directed to send his written explanations to show cause with the Commission as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of RTI Act for his absence before the Commission during hearing. The aforesaid written explanation of the CPIO along with supportive documents, if any should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4