Central Information Commission
Radha Mohan Sharma vs Cbi on 8 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/156884/SD
Radha Mohan Sharma ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
1, Tilak Marg,
C - Scheme,
Jaipur - 302005. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/05/2017
CPIO replied on : 09/06/2017
First appeal filed on : 20/06/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2017
Second Appeal dated : 09/08/2017
Date of Hearing : 08/05/2019
Date of Decision : 08/05/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant sought details of action taken on the compliant dated 08.04.2017 regarding alleged irregularities committed in allotting LPG Distributorship by officers of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Kishangarh Renwal, Tehsil Sambhar, Jaipur and in particular against Ranjeet Singh.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.1
Respondent: R.S. Shekhawat, Dy. SP & Rep. of CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur present through VC.
Rep. of CPIO submitted that appropriate reply has been provided on the RTI Application vide letter dated 09.06.2017 stating that CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where specific allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. He further referred to the written submissions of the CPIO dated 30.04.2019 sent to the Commission wherein it has been submitted that CPIO, CBI is obliged to provide information relating to allegation of corruption against its own employees and not regarding cases of corruption being investigated by CBI. In this regard CPIO relied upon certain earlier decisions of the Commission in File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/000687/SB dated 24.06.2016; CIC/SM/A/2013/001051/RM; CIC/SM/A/2011/001808 & 2916 dated 31.07.2012. He furthermore added that the Appellant has been persistently filing the Complaints against one officer of IOCL since year 2012.
Decision Commission observes that the reliance placed by CPIO on the earlier decisions of the coordinate benches to substantiate the view that CBI is only obliged to provide information relating to allegation of corruption against its own employees does not hold good. In this regard, reference shall be had of a recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs Sanjiv Chaturvedi [W.P.(C) 5521/2016 & CM No. 23078/2016] dated 23.08.2017, wherein the following was held:
"29. The plain reading of the proviso shows that the exclusion is applicable with regard to any information. The term "any information" would include within its ambit all kinds of information. The proviso becomes applicable if the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. The proviso is not qualified and conditional on the information being related to the exempt intelligence and security organizations. If the information sought, furnished by the exempt intelligence and security organizations, pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause.2
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/156884/SD
30. The proviso 'Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub- section' has to be read in the light of the preceding phrase 'or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government'.
31. When read together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that, if the information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organizations or not or pertains to an Officer of the Intelligence Bureau or not."
(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid ratio laid down with respect to the Intelligence Bureau is squarely applicable to the case of CBI also.
A copy of this order is marked to the Director, CBI reiterating the following advice issued in two earlier orders in File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/180556/SD and CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/180749/SD dated 29.04.2019 on the aforesaid issue:
"Further, Commission finds that the incorrect connotation ascribed by the CPIO to the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act that it is only applicable to cases involving CBI's own employees may result in gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act by the Respondent office in future. In this regard, a copy of this order is marked to the Director, CBI advising him to appreciate the necessity of sensitizing their CPIOs regarding the scope and ambit of RTI Act and that of Section 24 in particular by way of appropriate workshops etc."
As regards, Appellant's contention in the Second Appeal that the subject matter concerns allegations of corruption, Commission does not find any substantive material on record in support of his claim. Moreover, Appellant has also not availed the opportunity of hearing to plead his case and mere claim of corruption or human rights violation is not adequate to attract the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act.
3With the above observations and advisory, the appeal is disposed of.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Copy to:
Director
Central Bureau of Investigation
Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
--(For taking note of the advisory reiterated above) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User Date: 2019.05.08 17:38:30 IST 4