Central Information Commission
Y Akbar Ahmed vs Cbi on 19 January, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
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/C/2019/104922
Y Akbar Ahmed .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
3rd Floor, Shastri Bhawan, No 26,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600006 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/01/2021
Date of Decision : 19/01/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER: Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25/12/2018
CPIO replied on : 03/01/2019
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/02/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant sought information on three points, he sought to know whether the Investigation officer in the O/o. The CBI/ACB Branch, Chennai, obeyed and followed the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 1 Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others case (WP (CrI) No.68/2008, dt.12.11.2013 with respect to his complaint dated 24.11.2018 The CPIO replied to the complainant on 03.01.2019 stating that:-
"it is informed that your representation dated 24.11.2018 does not warrant any action by CBI. Hence, it was filed as per the existing procedure of this office."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Grounds for the Complaint:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant complaint. He also requested the Commission to provide information sought for and also to impose penalty on the concerned CPIO under section 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Sundaravel, Additional SP of Police & Representative of CPIO present through video-conference.
The Complainant stated a detailed narrative to argue that the CBI has the jurisdiction to investigate into his Complaint referred to in the instant RTI Application. He requested that the CPIO may be directed to provide a detailed reply to him stating their pecuniary jurisdiction for Complaints regarding bank frauds.
The CPIO submitted that with respect to the directions contained in the averred judgment for provisioning of the information being sought under the RTI Act, they have provided an appropriate reply to the Complainant informing him that his Complaint has been forwarded to the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Chennai.2
Decision The Commission observes at the outset that no action is warranted in the matter as the Complaint is premised on the grounds of dissatisfaction of the Complainant with a decision of CBI to forward his Complaint to Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. Likewise, during the hearing also, the Complainant was insisting on relief based on the said grievance and did not per se put forth any argument with respect to the instant RTI Application or the reply provided thereon.
Nonetheless, having heard the Complainant's grievance in detail, the Commission is of the considered view that he should pursue the matter with the competent court of law or the appropriate State Government.
The complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date Y Akbar Ahmed 3