Central Information Commission
Mohit vs Department Of Revenue on 6 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOFIN/A/2019/650820/DOREV
Mohit ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Financial Intelligence Unit
India, RTI Cell 6th Floor, Hotel
Samrat, Kautilya Marg, Chanakya
Puri - 110021, New Delhi. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/01/2022
Date of Decision : 04/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2019
CPIO replied on : 22/08/2019
First appeal filed on : 03/09/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 06/09/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 12.08.2019 seeking the following information:
"The word BLOCKBUSTERS in this application refers to the following 15 companies which were listed on the institutional trading platform of BSE vide scrip codes mentioned in parentheses
1. Jaisukh Dealers Limited (780001)
2. Gracious Software Limited (780002)
3. Kanak Krishi Implements Limited (780003)
4. Autumn Builders Limited (780004)
5. Supernova Advertising Limited (780008)
6. Madhuban Constructions Limited (780009)
7. K D Trend Wear Limited (780010)
8. Gokul Solutions Limited (780012)
9. City on Systems (India) Limited (780013)
10.Sanasa Tech Feb limited (780015)
11.Web Element Solutions Limited (780016)
12.Parnav Sports Academy Limited (780017)
13.Adhiraj Distributors Limited (780018)
14.Jigyasa Infrastructure Limited (780019)
15.Legacy Merchant: le Limited (780021) The Principal Officer of BSE being a public servant, is hereby alleged to have attempted to obtain from unknown money launderers, for himself and/or his accomplices, gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for
1. forbearing to file Suspicious Transactions Reports (STR) that the said officer was obliged to in the exercise of his official functions under PMLA Act
2. rendering disservice to the director of the Financial intelligence Unit by depriving him of suspicious transactions reports Shares were issued at INR 10 per share during or after 2011 in respect of each of the BLOCKBUSTERS and the same were sold at prices in excess of INR 250 per share which APPEAR TO HAVE NO ECONOMIC RATIONALE but to launder money and the principal officer CORRUPTLY omitted filing STRs in this regard. The foregoing allegations of corruption are to be considered an integral part of this application.2
U/s 6(1) r/w first proviso u/s 24(1) of RTI Act, the following information is sought in larger public interest in the context of the accompanying allegations of corruption
1. The earliest year in which a suspicious transaction report (if any) was received for EACH of the 15 BLOCKBUSTERS
2. The lowest share price recorded in the suspicious transactions reports (if any) for EACH of the 15 BLOCKBUSTERS."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 22.08.2019 stating that the information sought for cannot be provided as per the Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2019. FAA's order dated 06.09.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Manish Kumar Hairat, Additional Director & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the notice of hearing issued to the Appellant has come back undelivered with the remarks "Deceased".
The CPIO submitted that FIU-India has been placed at Sl. No.18 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide DoPT Notification dated 28th March 2008 and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. He further relied on his written submission wherein the following has been stated:
"2. FIU India collects, analyses and disseminates financial intelligence on money laundering & financing of terrorism, as mandated by PML Act 2002. Further, FIU India receives Suspicion Transaction Reports (STRs) from various reporting entities. The financial intelligence available in these reports is strictly confidential and very sensitive in nature. This intelligence is shared with Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies only in accordance with Section 66 of the PMLA 2002, and also with foreign FIUs following the basic rules established by it including maintaining security and confidentiality.3
3. The appellant / complainant had sought some information related to Suspicion Transaction Reports that are filed by Reporting Entities to FIU-India in accordance with PMLA 2002.
4. Any information related to STRs, or filing & dissemination of STRs, being confidential and sensitive, is squarely exempted from disclosure under Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Also in disclosing any such information, a risk exists that customers could be unintentionally tipped off and a customer's awareness of a possible STR or investigation could compromise future efforts to investigate the suspected money laundering or terrorist financing operation. Further, the information sought does not involve any case of corruption and/or human rights violation.
5. It also to submit that 'allegation of corruption' does not mean mere conjectures and surmises, and mere 'perception' or assertion of corruption is certainly no ground to agitate for right to information under the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act. Similarly, by just mentioning the words "corruption" or "allegation of corruption" in the RTI application, a person doesn't become entitled to get information from a Public Authority which is exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
6. It is also to state that Financial Intelligence Unit - India is also responsible for coordinating and strengthening efforts of national and international intelligence, investigation and enforcement agencies in pursuing the global efforts against money laundering and financing of terrorism.
7. India is a member of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which is an intergovernmental body which sets standards, and develops and promotes policies to combat money laundering and terrorist financing since June 2010. The FATF recommendation 21 on "Tipping-off and confidentiality" prohibits disclosing ("tipping-off") the fact that a suspicious transaction report (STR) or related information is being filed with the FIU.
8. FIU-India, as stated earlier, has therefore been placed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide DoPT Notification dated 28th March 2008.
9. The action by the CPIO was based on the above facts and circumstances, to which the FAA also concurred."
In addition to this said, the CPIO also brought the attention of the bench to earlier decided appeals of the Appellant which were also based on similar RTI Applications, wherein the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act was upheld by the Commission.
4Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application leaving no scope of intervention at this stage.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5