Central Information Commission
Chaitanya Kumar Singhania vs Cbi on 24 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/144905
Chaitanya Kumar Singhania
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO/Head of Branch, CBI Anti Corruption Branch
5-B, CBI HQ Building, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
&
CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Economic offence Zone, O/o the
Joint Director (Policy), CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
&
CPIO/Head of Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation,
EO - III, 27, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 24.04.2017
CPIO reply : not on record
First Appeal : 26.05.2017
FAA Order : 12.06.2017
Second Appeal : 30.06.2017
Date of hearing : 06.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 24.04.2017 sought information on two points as under:
1. Details of action taken by the CBI authorities in respect of the complaint filed by the appellant against the wrong doers of the management of M/s Sova Ispat Ltd and M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd, who had committed illegality when they were the joint allottees of the Ardhagram coal block.Page 1 of 3
2. Action taken by the CBI authorities in regard to the complaints dated 09.12.2016, 18.01.2017, 31.01.2017 & 27.03.2017 submitted to them.
The CPIO's reply is not on record. Due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 17.03.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 15.06.2017. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 30.06.2017. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present with advocate
Respondent : Shri K.R. Chaurasia,
Head of Branch cum CPIO along with others,
Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO handed over written submissions and stated that they had provided the requisite reply on 30.06.2017. The reply provided by them is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The advocate of the appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent as transfer of the said RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act was not done within the time as prescribed under the RTI Act. He further submitted that the exemption provided u/s 24 of the RTI Act to the CBI is not attracted in the present case as large scale of corruption in the CBI was involved in this case and that the sought for information must be provided to him so that he can unearth the same. He further submitted that delay in transferring the said RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act was a deliberate attempt with an intention to deny provisioning of the requisite information to the appellant. This attitude itself shows existence of corrupt practices among the officials of CBI and Page 2 of 3 it should attract the provision of the 1st proviso to the section 24 of the RTI Act for denying the exemption granted to the organization CBI from the ambit of the provisions of the RTI Act u/s 24 of the Act.
From the perusal of the case and on considering the submissions of the parties, the Commission observed that CBI perse is an exempted organization from the purview of the RTI Act and in the present case no prima facie violation of human rights or existence of corruption in the CBI was proved, even on a prima facie basis by the appellant during the hearing or otherwise. The appellant was not able to convince the commission, despite several opportunities given to him that the present case involves human rights violations or it involves large scale incidences of corruption in the CBI itself.
The Commission does not find it appropriate to give any direction to the CBI for disclosure of information sought by the appellant in the present case. The reply furnished by the respondent is considered as just and proper by the Commission.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Page 3 of 3