Central Information Commission
Shri D.K. Srivastava vs Hq, Western Naval Command, Ministry Of ... on 16 February, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00091-SM dated 16.06.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 16.02.2009
Appellant : Shri D.K. Srivastava
Respondent : HQ, Western Naval Command, Ministry of Defence
The Appellant is not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Cdr. S.K. Mishra
(ii) Cdr. Damesh Kumar
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had, in his letter dated 16 June 2007, requested the CPIO to provide him with the copies of a number of documents relating to a certain complaint filed against him by someone else. The CPIO, in his reply dated 19 June 2007, denied the information on the ground that the matter was under investigation and, therefore, the information sought was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this denial, he filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The first Appellate Authority decided the appeal in his order dated 13 August 2007 and endorsed the views of the CPIO. The Appellant has now approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice. We heard the submissions of the Respondent. The Respondent argued that, at the time the original application was filed by the Appellant, the matters involving this case were under investigation and summary trial and the disclosure of the information sought would have impeded and obstructed the course of investigation and trial. They argued that it was because of this reason that the information was not provided to the Appellant. The Respondent, however, informed that the said summary trial was now over. He submitted that two of the documents which the Appellant had sought could not be given to him because one of those, namely the one listed at (c) in his application did not exist and the one listed at (h) was a confidential document . Obviously, if a certain document does not exist, there is no question of giving a copy of it. The Respondent showed us a copy of the document listed at (h) and, on scrutiny of that document, we did not find anything which would attract the exemption provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. The letter contains the names of several employees including that of the Appellant. Therefore, the CPIO can provide a copy of this letter after severing the names of other employees so as to keep the identity of those employees confidential from the Appellant. In view of the fact that the trial is now over and the disclosure of this information would in no way affect the investigation and trial of this matter, we direct the CPIO to provide the information sought, with the above caveats, within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
4. With the above directions, we dispose off the appeal.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar