Central Information Commission
Mr.Ashish Pushkarna vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 26 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/004161
Appellant Shri Ashish Pushkarna
Public Authority Telecom Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI).
Date of hearing 26.06.2012
Date of decision 26.06.2012
Facts :-
This matter is heard today dated 26.06.2012 by the Bench of Shri M.L. Sharma, I.C. and Smt. Deepak Sandhu, I.C. Appellant not present but he is represented by Adv. D.M. Bhalla. TRAI is represented by Shri Sudhir Gupta, Principal Adviser; Ms. Anuradha Mitra, Principal Adviser and Shri S.D. Sharma, Deputy Adviser. The parties are heard and the records perused.
2. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 4.7.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"b.1 Copies of correspondences made on the quantum of loss and 2G scam to the Government in the allocation of 2G spectrum from Jan"2009 till date between : (i) TRAI(Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) and the CAG (II) Trai and Central Bureau of Investigation."
3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 2.8.2011 stating therein that as regards para (i) above, no such information was available in TRAI. As regards para (ii) above, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
4. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant had filed first appeal which was decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.9.2011 wherein she had upheld the decision of the CPIO. Para 03 of the order is extracted below :-
"3. Upon examination, it is seen that though the appellant has preferred the appeal against first issue i.e. copies of correspondence with CAG, but in the appeal he has not furnished any reason as to why the information should be available with TRAI. In this circumstance, I have no reason to differ with the opinion of the CPIO. As regards the correspondence with CBI, the CPIO has given the reason as to why the information cannot be disclosed but the same has been contested by the appellant as in his opinion, the disclosure of the information would not impede the process of investigation since the charge sheet in the case has already been filed. As to the common knowledge, the investigation of the 2G scam is being carried out by the CBI and dhow far these documents are related to which case can only be decided by the CBI and the opinion of the appellant is not relevant. Moreover, vide Govt.of India Gazette notification dated 9th June 2011, CBI is listed at Sl. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005 and as such, CBI is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act 2005 under sub section (1) of Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the CPIO not to disclose the correspondence of TRAI with CBI on the issue discussed above is in order."
5. During the hearing, Adv. Bhalla strongly protests against the decisions of the CPIO and AA. It is his contention that 2G Scam has shaken the nation and as a concerned citizen, the appellant is desirous of knowing the quantum of loss in this scam, as determined by TRAI/CAG. On a query from the Commission, he, however, submits that the appellant herein is not the affected party in as much as he is not concerned with the criminal case and yet he wishes to seek this information as a citizen of the country in exercise of his right under section 3 of the RTI Act.
6. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Gupta submits that the CBI investigated the scam and has filed a charge sheet against a number of accused persons and the matter is presently pending trial. The appellant has got no concern with the trial. The requested information is barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In addition, he also submits that CBI is the prosecuting agency in the matter and it is an exempted Organisation under section 24 of the RTI Act. Thus, looked at from any angle, the appellant is not entitled to requested information.
DECISION
7. As noted above, the matter in hand is under prosecution with which the appellant has no concern. Clause (h) of section 8(1) reads as follows :-
"Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders"
We are inclined to agree with the submission of Shri Gupta that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution. Viewed thus, we uphold the decisions of the CPIO and AA and dismiss the appeal.
Sd/- Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma) ( Smt. Deepak Sandhu )
Information Commissioner 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.
( K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The CPIO, TRAI, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. Shri Ashish Pushkarna, 110-B, Vikrant Enclave, mayapuri, New Delhi-110064.