Central Information Commission
Deepak Sandhu vs Cbi on 26 March, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2019/642731
Deepak Sandhu अपीलकता /Appellant
......अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Economic Offences Zone-I,
Central Bureau Of Investigation,
RTI Cell, 5-B, 10TH Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/03/2021
Date of Decision : 24/03/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/04/2019
CPIO replied on : 14/05/2019
First appeal filed on : 18/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 11/06/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/06/2019
1
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 19.04.2019 seeking information on following six points:
1. "Provide the certified copy of the information stating the total number of corruption complaints filed by the petitioner before CBI including in person submission at CBI Headquarters New Delhi and through email ID [email protected] to official email ID CBI namely [email protected] and [email protected] during the tenure December 2018 to April 2019.
2. Provide the certified copy of the every single day investigation step carried out by the CBI during the investigation of all the aforesaid complaints individually offline as well as online.
3. Provide the certified copy the final action taken report taken up by the CBI upon all the aforesaid corruption complaints individually offline as well as online.
4. Provide the certified copy of all the statement/s including the petitioner as well as the accused recorded by the CBI till today during the investigation of all the complaints individually offline as well as online.
5. Provide the certified copy of the official declaration in the form of an information that as it seems that no step yet has been opted by the CBI since after almost 04 months of filing numerous corruption complaints even corroborated with plethora of Prima Facie corruption evidences Specify the exact cause of the inaction so far.
6. Provide the certified copy of the official declaration that whether the all corruption complaints are found True or False Please do substantiate the same with documentary evidences."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 14.05.2019 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per Section 24 of RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2019. FAA's order dated 11.06.2019 stated that as under:-
Point No. 1:- Information sought cannot be denied to the Appellant under Section 24 of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore the CPIO was directed to provide the information.2
Point Nos. 2, 3 & 4:- Information denied under Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005 Point Nos. 5 & 6:- Information sought cannot be provided as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Subhash Pandey, CPIO and Abhinav Khare, SP & Representative of CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant narrated the factual context of his RTI Application and reiterated the grounds of his Second Appeal wherein he has stated as under:
"It is submitted that the complainant has filed numerous corruption complaints against PMO, MYAS, NADA, NDTL, SAI, CAG and others corroborated with concrete documentary evidences on the basis of various landmark verdicts pronounced by Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi apparently suspecting and ordering of immediate inquiry in irregularities in anti doping statistics during 2015 & 16 and embezzlement of rupees hundreds of crores done by Sh. Vijay Goel , the then Minister of the State, Sh. Sarbananda Sonowal, the then M.P. including various almost 43 accused from the all aforesaid depatments as well as ministries.
The Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Sh. Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu Ji in his one of the historic verdict CIC/MOYAS/A/2018/610300 dated 08/11/2018 suspected huge scandal in the above said citations and ordered a time bound inquiry.
Moreover, Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner, Sh. R.K. Mathur Ji through 06 cases bearing title 'Deepak Sandhu v/s Prime Minister's Office too ordered a time bound inquiry in the said matter but unfortunately, both the landmark verdicts had been blatantly overlooked by the PMO as well as MYAS and no inquiry was yet initiated instead repeated reminders.3
Meanwhile, the appellant during Dec.2018-April 2019 filed numerous corruption complaints before CBI by enclosing plethora of prima facie corruption evidences. But, after a lapse of considerable time span, even neither a preliminary inquiry nor recoding of complainant statement / accused be commenced by CBI.
He further stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information by the FAA on the grounds of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant stated that he has filed 1 Complaint in Dec 2018 with 265 pages of documentary evidence and subsequent 4 complaints were sent to supplement the original Complaint.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that the Complaint sent in Dec 2018 has been taken on record by their office and that a reply to this effect has been also sent to the Appellant in compliance with the FAA's order on 26.06.2019. He further submitted that the information regarding the Complaint received in Dec 2018 will be available with the ACP, Delhi as the said Complaint was forwarded by CBI to the ACP, Delhi. At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to procure the available information from the ACP, Delhi and provide it to the Appellant. Furthermore, for the remaining complaints, the Rep. of CPIO submitted that the available information will be provided to the Appellant.
The Appellant expressed his inability to confirm whether he has received the reply of 26.06.2019 or not as he was getting confused with the multitude of documents that he was carrying with at the time of the hearing.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record as well as from the submissions of the Rep. of CPIO during the hearing observes that the CPIO erred in mindlessly invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act in his original reply to the RTI Application as the allegations of corruption were pertinent therein. Nonetheless, even as the FAA accepted the allegations of corruption and ordered for partial relief in the matter, the denial of the information on points no. 2, 3 & 4 of the RTI Application under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was not substantiated in any manner. Moreover, no explanation to this effect was forthcoming from the Rep. of the CPIO during the hearing which raises a reasonable doubt that the blanket 4 denial of the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act on points no. 2-4 of the RTI Application was unwarranted.
In addition to the aforesaid, the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing as well as the material on record suggest a larger public interest in the disclosure of the information as sought for in the RTI Application. It is pertinent to note that two coordinate benches of the Commission have taken cognizance of the serious allegations of corruption leveled by the Appellant.
Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the available information as sought for at points no.2, 3, 4 of the RTI Application to the Appellant. In doing so, if the information is to be procured from the concerned record holder/another public authority, the CPIO will adequately liaise with such other record holder(s)/public authorities as per Section 5(4) & 5(5) of the RTI Act and provide the available information directly to the Appellant. In the event that the information is not available in parts or as a whole for any of the averred points, a categorical statement to this effect shall be duly intimated in the CPIO's reply to the Appellant. The CPIO is further directed to resend a copy of the reply dated 26.06.2019 to the Appellant containing the information for point no.1 of the RTI Application.
The information as directed above should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
No relief is being ordered with respect to points no. 5 & 6 of the RTI Application as the FAA has rightly held them to be outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act since the Appellant has merely conjectured about the fate of his complaints therein.
5The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोजपुनहािन) Saroj Punhani (सरोजपु हािन सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6