Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sabastian J Sequeira vs Intelligence Bureau on 25 April, 2023

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/INBRU/A/2022/124443

Shri Sebastian J Sequeira                                       ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Jt. Dy. Director, Intelligence Bureau                ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
New Delhi
Through: Shri Harminder Singh - DCIO

Date of Hearing                        :     24.04.2023
Date of Decision                       :     25.04.2023
Chief Information Commissioner         :     Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on               :     12.01.2022
PIO replied on                         :     03.03.2022
First Appeal filed on                  :     07.04.2022
First Appellate Order on               :     21.04.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on        :     24.05.2022
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2022 seeking the following information:-

The Government Information Officer/Asstt. Commissioner of Police(1), SB -2, CID, Mumbai forwarded the RTI application to the Sr. Inspector, Airport Branch, CSM Int. Airport, Mumbai vide letter dated 14.01.2022 stating as under:

The PIO/Jt. Dy. Director, IB vide letter dated 03.03.2022 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.04.2022. The FAA/Dy. Director, IB vide order dated 21.04.2022 stated as under:-

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in the course of Hearing:

Hearing is held through video conference upon serving notice of hearing in advance to both parties. Both parties are heard through video conference wherein the averments discussed hereinabove are duly reiterated by the relevant parties. The Appellant states that since he has filed a suit in the Court of law, he has sought the information about the accused, who is the third party in this case.

Decision:

Upon hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is in agreement with the arguments put forth by the Respondent placing reliance on Section 24 of the RTI Act. In fact information sought by the Appellant pertains to a third party, hence, exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is also applicable in this case. Considering the fact that the substantive matter is already before the competent Court, the Appellant is advised to obtain the information through the appropriate legal recourse available before the Court, but outside the purview of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3