Central Information Commission
Ca Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Central Vigilance Commission on 11 January, 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/CVCOM/A/2020/692824
CIC/CVCOM/A/2020/692828
CA RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan,
G.P.O Complex, Block A, IBA,
New Delhi-110023. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/01/2023
Date of Decision : 10/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI applications filed on : 08/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 01/10/2020 & 08/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 18/10/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 13/11/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/11/2020
1
CIC/CVCOM/A/2020/692824
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"1 Related to Vig 4 - Mr Madhukar Narayan SO (Item 5) as per CPIO list 24/8/2020.-of CBDT , FIU under PMLA Act, 2002 Kindly provide copy of extract / portion as enclosed to decided norms for major penalty and quantum of Punishment item number 18 of 2017 return Vigilance Section report submitted to CVC from 2015 till date. Kindly send information in soft form.
2 Related to Vig 5 - Mr Madhukar Narayan SO (Item 5) as per CPIO list 24/8/2020.-of CBIC , D/o Economic Affairs , D/o of Revenue , D/O Of Expenditure , M/o Finance , Debt Recovery Tribunal, SEBI, UTI Kindly provide copy of extract / portion as enclosed to decided norms for major penalty and quantum of Punishment item number 18 of 2017 return Vigilance Section report submitted to CVC from 2015 till date. Kindly send information in soft form 3 Related to Vig 9 - Mr PVR Krishna SO (Item 13) as per CPIO list 24/8/2020.of land owning agencies of Union Territories like DDA and CBDT etc. Kindly provide copy of extract / portion as enclosed to decided norms for major penalty and quantum of Punishment item number 18 of 2017 return etc Vigilance Section report submitted to CVC from 2015 till date. Kindly send information in soft form 4 In case some returns (and / or portion sought by Undersigned is filed afterward) were misplaced/ not traceable (In CVC) for Item 1 to 3 then collect the same from CVO agencies for Item No 1 to 3 and give them to Undersigned. 5 Kindly provide inspection of records maintained by office listed at Point 1 TO 4 above 6 Kindly provide soft copy of records pointed out during inspection."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 01.10.2020 stating as under :-
"Information sought is not clear. Hence, no further information can be provided by this CPIO."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2020. FAA's order dated 13.11.2020, held as under:
2
"Perusal of records, reveal that the Appellant had sought for Information, through his RTI Application, to which the CPIO had responded vide online reply dated 08.10.2020 in which he has stated that the issues raised by the Appellant is in the form of seeking queries which does not constitute information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the Application is found to be neither specific nor clear about information being sought. In this regard, it is stated that the RTI Appellant vide his RTI Appeal has sought for information which is neither specific nor clear. Moreover, the issues raised are in the form of questioning the nature and quality of actions taken by the Commission which is not permissible under the provisions of RTI Act as upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) in its decision in case No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 in respect of Or. D. V. Rao vs Department of Legal Affairs, in which CIC has dearly stated that "The underlying idea is clearly that the petitioner's entitlement for information is only in respect of the categories of information mentioned in Sec 2(f). It is not open to an Appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the Public Authority about the nature and quality of their actions". Therefore, no further action is required in the matter.
The issues raised by the Appellant in his Appeal dated 18.10.2020, have thus been addressed appropriately."
CIC/CVCOM/A/2020/692828 The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 08.10.2020 stating as under :-
"The issue raised by you in your RTI Application is not covered under the definition of information under the RTI Act. Under the guise of seeking information, you have raised issue in the form of seeking queries which does not constitute information as defined under Section 2 f of the RTI Act. Information sought is neither specific nor clear. Therefore, no information can be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2020. FAA's order dated 13.11.2020, held as under:
"Perusal of records, reveal that the Appellant had sought for Information, through his RTI Application, to which the CPIO had responded vide online reply dated 08.10.2020 in which he has stated that the issues raised by the Appellant is in the form of seeking queries which does not constitute information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the Application is found to be 3 neither specific nor clear about information being sought. In this regard, it is stated that the RTI Appellant vide his RTI Appeal has sought for information which is neither specific nor clear. Moreover, the issues raised are in the form of questioning the nature and quality of actions taken by the Commission which is not permissible under the provisions of RTI Act as upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) in its decision in case No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 in respect of Or. D. V. Rao vs Department of Legal Affairs, in which CIC has dearly stated that "The underlying idea is clearly that the petitioner's entitlement for information is only in respect of the categories of information mentioned in Sec 2(f). It is not open to an Appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information, questions to the Public Authority about the nature and quality of their actions". Therefore, no further action is required in the matter.
The issues raised by the Appellant in his Appeal dated 18.10.2020, have thus been addressed appropriately."
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 audio conference. Respondent: Apul Jayaswal, Director & CPIO along with Mahinder Singh Yadav, Director & CPIO present in person.
Decision:
The instant set of appeal(s) are being disposed of with the observations and directions issued vide order of even date in File No: CIC/CVCOM/A/2020/692819 as all of these cases are based same or similar RTI Application(s) and same grounds of Appeal.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5