Central Information Commission
Sandeep Yadav vs Central Vigilance Commission on 26 December, 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/CVCOM/A/2022/147251
Sandeep Yadav ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.07.2022 FA : 31.07.2022 SA : 04.10.2022
CPIO : 19.07.2022 FAO : 08.09.2022 Hearing : 20.12.2023
Date of Decision: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.07.2022 seeking information related to complaint dated 07.06.2014 :-
(i) Registration number of the complaint and present status.
(ii) Registration number and copy of F.I.R.s u/s 292 and 497/511 of Indian Penal code as mentioned in the complaint and present status.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Keeping in view the provision of the PIDPI resolution, any details about the complaint received under PIDPI resolution, as mentioned by you in your RTI Page 1 of 3 application cannot be confirmed or denied, as per provisions constrained under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2022 alleging that the information was incorrectly denied. The FAA vide order dated 08.09.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 04.10.2022.
5. The appellant was not present and on behalf of the respondent Roopal Prakash, Director & CPIO alongwith S K Gwaliya attended the hearing in person.
6. The Commission remarked at the pendency of the matters before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court where disclosures ordered in PIDPI matters by the CIC have been challenged by CVC and the same stand pending as on date.
7. The Commission brings to the attention of both the parties that a series of directions ordered by a former coordinate bench with respect to the records of PIDPI Resolution has been challenged by CVC before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide the following cases:
1. W.P.(C) 5105/2021 & CM APPL. 15643/2021 - CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. KRISHAN KUMAR
2. W.P.(C) 5596/2021 & CM APPL. 17444/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. MANISHA SINGH
3. W.P.(C) 5600/2021 & CM APPL. 17451/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. O. ABDUL HAMEED
4. W.P.(C) 5674/2021 & CM APPL. 17722/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. ASHWANI KUMAR Having regard to the pending adjudication of the Court, the Commission does not find it proper to proceed on merits with the instant matter which is premised on the same Page 2 of 3 subject matter. The Appellant is at liberty to pursue the matter afresh upon the finality of the above said litigation.
8. The Appeal is closed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 22.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Central Vigilance Commission, Nodal CPIO, RTI (Branch), Satarkata Bhawan, Block-A, C.G.O. Complex, I. N. A. New Delhi-110023.
2. Sandeep Yadav Page 3 of 3