Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar vs Cbi on 23 February, 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/A/2019/121027
Ashok Kumar अपीलकता /Appellant
.....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Supdt. Of Police, HOB,
Central Bureau Of Investigation,
RTI Cell, Anti Corruption Branch,
Panama Chowk Rail Head Complex,
Jammu 180012. ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/02/2021
Date of Decision : 23/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/01/2019
CPIO replied on : 18/01/2019
First appeal filed on : 02/02/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 28/02/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/05/2019
1
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2019 seeking information on following five points regarding "AHVY Cluster Scheme" implemented- by NGO's sponsored by O/o Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), GOI in the Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi, including inter-alia;
"1. Provide attested copies of FIR's lodged U/s 120-B r/w 467, 468, 471 RPC and section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of J&K PC Act, registered against the listed NGO's funded under `AHVY Cluster Scheme' sponsored by Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), GOI in the Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi.
2. Provide Case No. & Status (active/stayed) of the cases registered against these listed NGO's in the Hon'ble CBI Court Jammu.
3. Provide attested copy of Orders if any, from Hon'ble High Court Jammu Bench regarding the case proceedings of these listed NGO's.
List of NGO's:-
a. KJK Welfare Society, Jammu b. National Foundation, Rajouri c. United Handicraft SHG Federation Industrial Co-Op, Rajouri d. National Institute of Education & Technical Art, Jammu e. Social Action for Social Development, Jammu f. New Women Welfare Society, Jammu g. Vandana Welfare Society, Jammu."
The CPIO replied to the Appellant on 18.01.2019 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per section 24(1) and 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2019. FAA's order dated 28.02.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Dr. Vidyut Vikas, SP & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that the denial of the information is not appropriate as the details sought for by him pertain to serious allegations of corruption against the listed NGOs.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant is well aware of the details of these cases and of the fact that a Charge sheets have been filed in these cases, and therefore he is entitled to ask whatever case related records is desired by him from the concerned Court of Law. He further insisted that the Appellant should not clog the public authorities with RTI Application seeking such information which is already available with him or which can be accessed from the Court. He furthermore brought the attention of the bench to point no. 3 of the RTI Application to state that it is unreasonable for the Appellant to ask for certified copies of High Court orders from CBI since the CPIO of CBI has no right to certify the records of the High Courts.
In furtherance of the CPIO's contentions, the Commission inquired from the Appellant if he is already aware of the Case status and their details as well as the fact that Charge sheets have been filed in the averred cases of NGOs.
To this, the Appellant responded in affirmative and reluctantly stated that he will ask for the details from the concerned Court.
DECISION The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information was originally denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, however, the submissions of the CPIO during the hearing did not reflect upon the reasons for invoking Section 8(1)(h), rather he limited his arguments to the fact that Appellant can access all of this information from the concerned Court of Law.
Now, the mandate of the RTI Act does not allow for denial of information on the grounds that the citizens can access the same information from other sources, in other words, information sought for under the RTI Act can only be denied under 3 the exemption clauses of Section 8 and/or 9 and Section 19(5) of the RTI Act requires the CPIO to discharge the onus of justifying such denial of information. In the instant case, although the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was invoked but no explanation to this effect was forthcoming from the CPIO during the hearing. The Commission is inclined to accept the argument of the CPIO only with respect to point no.3 of the RTI Application that the Appellant could not have asked for certified copies of High Court orders from CBI.
Nonetheless, it was incumbent upon the CPIO to provide whatever information was available in their records with respect to the instant RTI Application and for such records which could not have been certified, a factual statement to this effect should have been stated in the CPIO's reply.
Having observed as above, the Commission now directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the RTI Application in a point-wise manner incorporating the copy of available FIRs; Case Nos. & Status and High Court orders, if any, in their record. In doing so, the CPIO will indicate the reasons for not being able to provide the certified copies of the available documents, where applicable. Similarly, non- availability of the information on any of the points in parts or as a whole shall also be specified in the CPIO's reply.
The information as directed above shall be provided to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5