Central Information Commission
Mr.Hemant Goswami vs Cbi on 2 April, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000866
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 2 April 2012
Date of decision : 2 April 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Hemant Goswami
C/o. Burning Brain Society,
Society for Prevention of Crime &
Corruption, House No. 1726, Sector 33D,
Chandigarh.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Sector 30A, Chandigarh.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Brij Lal, CPIO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant did not turn up in the Chandigarh studio of the NIC in spite of notice. The Respondent was present and made his submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought a number of information relating to the enquiries made by the CBI on his complaint relating to the Chandigarh teachers' recruitment scam. He had also sought to inspect the relevant records. The CPIO had explained that after enquiry, the matter had been referred to the CIC/SM/A/2011/000866 CVO of the Chandigarh administration and the DOEACC Society to take further necessary action. He had also advised the Appellant to deposit Rs. 400 towards the photocopying charges for supplying 200 pages of documents relating to the investigation report. It seems the Appellant had deposited the charges but the CPIO did not provide the promised documents.
4. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that although the CPIO had offered to disclose documents, by the time the Appellant had deposited the photocopying charges, this entire matter had become sub judice in the High Court and, therefore, it was not considered right to provide the copies of these documents. He further informed that the High Court had very recently disposed of the case with the direction that the CBI should investigate the entire matter. He submitted that now that the CBI was required to enquire into the matter, the relevant documents should not be disclosed as it might impede the process of investigation. He adduced another ground for not disclosing the information, namely, that the CBI was now included in the Second Schedule and, therefore, the provisions of the Right to Information Act would not apply to it.
5. Evidently, this case has taken a rather tortuous course. It is a fact that the CBI had originally referred the matter to the Chandigarh administration and the DOEACC society for taking further necessary action in the matter. In other words, they had shared some information about this case with those bodies. Therefore, they cannot claim that the information held by them should not be disclosed at all now as it might impede the course of investigation. Thus, whatever record had been generated prior to the decision of the High Court in the matter can be disclosed as the CBI itself had decided that this matter did not warrant any investigation by it. Any new evidence that might come out of CIC/SM/A/2011/000866 the investigation to be undertaken now on the order of the High Court would obviously fall in a different class. Therefore, we would like to direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the promised 200 pages of documents relating to this case including the report sent by the CBI to the CVO of the Chandigarh administration/ DOEACC society within 10 working days of receiving this order.
6. About the inclusion of the CBI in the Second Schedule we would like to cite the decision of the Supreme Court in the SLP (C) No. 3276832769 of 2010 in the CIC vs State of Manipur case. In this decision, the Supreme Court has held that the inclusion of any public authority in the Second Schedule under Section 24 of the RTI Act can only be prospective and shall not apply to requests received prior to such notification. Therefore, in the present case, the information sought prior to the notification of the CBI's inclusion in the Second Schedule cannot be denied on the only ground that the RTI Act no longer applies to the CBI.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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) CIC/SM/A/2011/000866 Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/000866