Central Information Commission
Manish Kumar vs Cbi on 13 August, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/132369
In the matter of:
Manish Kumar
...Appellant
Vs.
PIO/Superintendent of Police
O/o the Superintendent of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation EOW,
Kali Babu Street, Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834001. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 29.12.2016
CPIO reply : 14.02.2017
First Appeal : 14.03.2017
FAA Order : 20.04.2017
Second Appeal : 12.05.2017
Date of hearing : 27.07.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 29.12.2016 sought information on two points as under:
1. Whether CBI had recommended, directed or passed any order to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) advising/ordering them not to issue security clearance to M/s Indo Thai Airport Management Services Private Limited for the years 2015 and 2016 on account of the involvement of a shareholder of the company, namely, Shri Pawan Kumar Dhoot in the CBI case no., RC 02(S)/2012-AHD-R dated 19.04.2012.
2. Copy of the said recommendation/direction/order issued to the BCAS by the CBI.1
The CPIO replied on 14.02.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 14.03.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 20.04.2017. 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 12.05.2017. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar, ( from Ranch present in Delhi)
Additional Superintendent of Police cum APIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 14.02.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 20.04.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent as the sought for information should be disclosed as a larger public interest angle is involved in the case. This is to know as to whether the CBI had passed any order to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) for not issuing security clearance to M/s Indo Thai Airport Management Services Private Limited and that as this action of the CBI had jeopardized the livelihood of more than 1000 people working in the said company.
During the hearing, the respondent authority submitted that it was the BCAS who had chosen not to give security clearance to M/s Indo Thai Airport Management Services Private Limited. So, the question of involving CBI in that decision making process is neither fair nor proper.
From the perusal of the case and on considering the submissions of the parties, the Commission observed that the CBI perse is an exempted organization under the provision of the RTI Act and no prima facie violation of 2 human rights or incidence of corruption in the CBI is seen to be involved in the present case. The appellant was not able to convince the commission that the present case involves human rights violations or that it involves incidences of large scale corruption in the CBI at least in regard to the present case. Hence, the Commission does not find it appropriate to give any direction for disclosure of information sought for in regard to point no.1 of the above stated RTI application. The rest of the replies are considered to be just and proper.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3