Sunil S Wagh vs Cbi on 21 October, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sunil S Wagh vs Cbi on 21 October, 2022

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/CBRUI/A/2020/132608

Sunil S Wagh                                            ......अपीलकता /Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
CPIO,
CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch,
RTI Cell, Plot No. C-35A, G
Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400098, Maharashtra                              .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :   20/10/2022
Date of Decision                    :   20/10/2022

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :              Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :   02/01/2020
CPIO replied on                     :   15/01/2020
First appeal filed on               :   04/02/2020
First Appellate Authority's order   :   04/03/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :   14/04/2020

Information sought

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.01.2020 seeking the following information pertaining to his complaints dated 24.09.2019 & 23.09.2019:

[1] "certified copy of the FIR as detailed above.

[2] Certified copy of the periodical progress report on investigation in respect of above FIR.

[3] Please inform me the Name, Designation, Badge Number, Office Address and Phone No of the Investigating Officer(s) entrusted with the investigation of the case with respect to above FIR.

[4] Certified copy of the case diary indicating the name of persons arrested in connection with above FIR and the reasons for such arrest; [5] Please inform me the name of friend, relative' r other person of the arrested accused so informed about such arrest, in terms of the directions issued by Director General of CBI & Director General of Police with regard to arrest and detention as per dicta laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP decided on 25/04/1994.

[6] In case no such action is taken or diary entry is not maintained in respect of above HR, please inform me the name of officer(s) and staff responsible, but failed to take action to maintain diary entry with regard to arrest as also failed to inform near friend, relative or other person about arrest of the accused in FIR mentioned above.

[7] If no diary entry is available inspite of arrest of accused, please supply me the certified copy of the circular issued by the Director General of CBI & Director General of Police Maharashtra State; as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP decided on 2510411994.

[8] Certified copy of the investigation report as prepared by the Investigating officer in respect of above FIR.

[9] Please supply me the copy of record and/or statements of accused and/or- witnesses recorded "during the course of investigation, based on which the report and findings were drawn by the investigating officer. [10] If the accused and/or witnesses were not interrogated or their statements not recorded, please supply me certified copy of documents based on which the findings of investigation was drawn by the Investigating Official. [11] Certified copy of your rules or citizens charter or any other documents stipulating the time frame in number of days, by which such a complaint/matter should have been dealt with and investigated by your public authority."

The CPIO transferred the RTI application on 15.01.2020 to the CPIO, The Chief Secretary, Maharashtra Mantralay, Mumbai under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the appellant.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2020.

FAA's order dated 04.03.2020 held as under:-

2. "The basic grievance of the appellant is that instead of providing documents pertaining to FIR, progress reports etc. relating to the complaints sent by him to CBI ACB Mumbai, CPIO/ ACB Mumbai instead forwarded his RTI application to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra.

3. Perusal of the file reveals that the complaints received from the appellant in CBI ACB Mumbai had been transferred by CBI ACB Mumbai to the Director General of Police, Anti Corruption bureau, Maharashtra State, Mumbai for necessary action vide letter No. CE/026/2019/0719/908 dated 13.07.2017. It was also mentioned in this letter that CBI, ACB Mumbai has not undertaken any enquiry/investigation of the complaints of Shri Sunil Sampat. Wagh. The perusal of the RTI file also reveals that the ACB Mumbai in turn had forwarded this complaint to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra vide letter No. 10037 dated 22.11.2019. Since the complaint had been sent to the Chief Secretary, government of Maharashtra that is why, CPIO, CBI ACB Mumbai had forwarded the RTI application of the appellant pertaining to this complaint to the Chief Secretary, government of Maharashtra for necessary action as per provisions of Section 6(3) of ARTI Act 2005.

4. It is obvious from the above that no action whatsoever has been taken by CBI, ACB Mumbai on the two complaints of the appellant. Without undertaking any enquiry or investigation on the complaints, the same were forwarded as it is to the 0/o Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau, Government of Maharashtra from where this appeal has been forwarded to the Office of the Chief Secretary.

Since no FIR has been registered in CBI and no investigation undertaken, there is no question of supplying the copy of the FIR and any other documents relating to investigation. As far as the provisions of RTI Act are concerned it applies to only those cases where information sought is available in the relevant office. In this case since the information sought is not available in CBI ACB Mumbai it cannot be said that information is deliberately not been provided to the appellant. Since it came to the knowledge of CPIO that the relevant complaint had been forwarded to the office of Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, he rightly forwarded the RTI application of the appellant to the office of Chief Secretary for further necessary action as laid down in Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005."

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: Pankaj Bansal, DSP & Rep. of CPIO present through video conference.

The Appellant stated that the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra has not investigated the matter and has rather botched up the investigation, they just issues orders that the investigation has been completed. Against the same, there was another complaint made to CBI and CBI referred the same to the Anti-Corruption branch.

The CPIO submitted on the lines of the FAA's order and affirmed that the transfer of the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Chief Secretary, State Govt. of Maharashtra was bonafide and as per the mandate of the RTI Act. He further referred to a decision of the Commission passed in a similar matter of the Appellant vide File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2019/148729 dated 14.06.2021 wherein the bench had upheld the same stand of the CPIO.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the FAA has passed a reasoned order explaining the reasons for transferring the instant RTI Application to the concerned State Government and there is no reason to intervene with the action of the CPIO or the reasoning of the FAA. Moreover, the primary contention of the Appellant is that the concerned State Government has not carried out the desired investigation. Concededly, as pointed out by the CPIO, this bench has already heard the similar grounds of the Appellant in File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2019/148729 wherein the following was held:

"The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record as well as the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing that the instant case is not as much about seeking access to information as much it is about channelising the Appellant's grievance regarding the desired action not been taken on his averred Complaint. As far as the FAA's order is concerned, the Commission does not find any infirmity therein as the detailed status of the action taken on the Appellant's 4 complaint has been informed to him, and it is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that for further information in the matter, the Appellant should approach the concerned State Government.

In other words, the insistence of the Appellant to question the merits of the action taken by the CBI on his Complaint or the inaction of DG, ACB, Maharashtra or the allegation that investigation report has not been submitted by CP-Thane, are all issues which are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.

In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:

'6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.' Emphasis Supplied The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:

'6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.' Emphasis Supplied While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:

'20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority....' Emphasis Supplied Adverting to the aforesaid ratios, no action is warranted in the matter and the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievances, if any, through proper channel before the competent authority."

It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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 / 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission