Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar vs Cbi on 27 July, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/104035
In the matter of:
Ajay Kumar
...Appellant
VS
CPIO and Superintendent of Police, O/o the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation
EOW, Kali Babu Street, Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834001 ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 07.11.2016
CPIO reply : 29.11.2016
First Appeal : 08.12.2016
FAA Order : 27.12.2016
Second Appeal : 16.01.2017
Date of hearing : 09.03.2018, 29.06.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 07.11.2016 sought information on three points; whether Dr Chandrabhushan Dubey, Piggery Development Officer was found guilty in Fodder Scam case no. 52(A)/1996, whether there was any prohibitory order on him or his legal representatives against sale/ purchase of immovable properties belonging to them and other related information. The CPIO replied on 29.11.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 08.12.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 27.12.2016 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 16.01.2017. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Page 1 of 5
Interim Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri A.K. Jha,
Additional Superintendent of Police cum APIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 29.11.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 27.12.2016 in which they claimed that CBI is exempted under sec 24 and placed under Schedule II of the RTI Act. He further submitted that information cannot be provided because in some case the information was misused. He was directed to send his submissions in this regard to the Commission at the earliest through e-mail.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent as angles of violation of human rights and large scale corruption are involved in this case. He was requested to send his submissions in this regard.
He submitted that larger public interest is involved in this case as Dr Chandrabhushan Dubey's immovable properties are being purchased by common people although CBI had prohibited the same. He submitted that copies of such letters of prohibition issued by CBI should be provided to the appellant in this regard in the interest of justice & for the knowledge of general public. The CPIO, CBI is directed to bring complete records for perusal of the Commission on the next date of hearing before the CIC.
The registry is directed to fix the next date of hearing in the last week of April 2018 at the CIC building, Room No. 212, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Final Order : 29.06.2018
Appellant : Present over audio conferencing
Respondent : Shri Devendra Singh,
Superintendent of Police cum PIO
Page 2 of 5
During the hearing, the appellant submitted over phone that he came to know from CBI that there was prohibition / restriction and further submitted that large public interest angle is involved in this case.
Shri Devendra Singh, Superintendent of Police cum PIO was present in person and submitted before the CIC that the third party, Dr Chandra Bhushan Dubey, Piggery Development Officer, Ranchi had been arraigned as an accused in six fodder scam cases. That cognizance of the alleged offences were taken and also charges were framed against Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey and other accused persons when he was alive. However, before the final order and judgment could be passed, Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey expired and trial against him stood abated. Besides the aforesaid criminal cases, Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 210/96 was filed u/s 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 for attachment of properties acquired out of the proceeds of crime during and after the period of alleged occurrence by Dr Chandra Bhushan Dubey in his own name as well as in the names of his wife Smt. Hirajari Devi and other family members. The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi was pleased to order for ad-interim attachment on 06.12.1996 which after adjudication was made absolute on 03.12.2002. The applicant CBI filed a petition for appointment of a Receiver on behalf of the State Government of Jharkhand to maintain and manage the attached properties of Dr Chandra Bhushan Dubey. The attachment proceeding continued and culminated at Civil Court, Ranchi when Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey was alive.
The family members of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey moved Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2003 against the order of attachment dated 03.12.2002 in the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court after adjudication rejected the appeal filed against the order of attachment on 21.06.2007.
The family member of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey then filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4392 of 2007 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court for reconsideration of the appeal no. 216 of 2003.
Page 3 of 5The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court after reconsideration finally dismissed the said appeal on 08.09.2008. Smt. Hirajari Devi, wife of Dr Chandra Bhushan Dubey filed another Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1529 of 2008 in the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi for restoration of the appeal filed against the order of attachment. The said application was also dismissed holding that no grounds for restoration of appeal existed. Upon learning that the family members of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey had transferred some of the attached properties, the applicant CBI also filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed in the Court of Sub Judge-I, Ranchi. The suit is now under adjudication. The District Magistrate, Ranchi and District Magistrate, Patna under whose territorial jurisdictions the attached properties of Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey and his family members are located, had been informed about the details of properties attached by the CBI alleging that the said properties had been acquired out of the proceeds of the alleged crime by late Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey.
After hearing the submission of the respondent, the Commission is of the opinion that already corruption charges were levelled against the deceased third party and the said properties were apparently acquired from the said illegal gratification received by the third party. Hence, in view of the larger public interest involved, it would be prudent to disclose the sought for information to the appellant to bring in more transparency in the matter and also to warn potential buyers of these properties to be careful before entering into any sort of agreement for purchase of the same. In fact the Commission is of the view that in the interest of public good and order, the CBI may consider publishing the list of such properties located in the territorial jurisdictions of DM's Patna and Ranchi on the websites of CBI, Patna as well district administrators of Ranchi and Patna so that potential buyers of such properties can be more careful before investing their hard earned money in the purchase/sale of such properties in future.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised Page 4 of 5 point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above direction, 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 Page 5 of 5