Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anita A Singh vs Central Vigilance Commission on 19 February, 2025

                                   के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/110783

Anita A Singh                                               ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO: Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi                                   ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI :     09.07.2023         FA    : 15.08.2023             SA     : 05.04.2023

CPIO : 04.08.2023            FAO : 05.02.2024               Hearing : 31.01.2025


Date of Decision: 18.02.2025
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 I the undersigned, made complaint against Banking Officer of Bank of Maharashtra Sea Wood Branch New Mumbai, Who sanction loan based on Inflated/Fraudulent documents submitted by Mrs. Girija Akhand Singh & Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh Directors of M/s Vindhyawashini Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. new Mumbai having PAN Card No. *******732P. The case was register by CVC Vide Letter No. CONF/CFM/7108/19/400316 (copy encl.) & letter No. CNF9226/19/431322 dt 30.8.2019 (copy encl.) In this connection following information required to ensure supervision of vigilance officer under conduct rule Page 1 of 5

1. To whom the both case of complaint under PIDPI referred for investigation please furnish the name designation.

2. Whether CVC monitored the case provided under provision of PIDI Act If yes what follow up action was taken kindly furnish date wise with details of office note/letter

3. Whether DAR action was taken against bank officials on my complaint referred above please furnish the name of bank officer who sanctioned the loan furnish in my application and office note related with sanction may be provided please if documents was not seize kindly furnish the reason

4. What criminal action was taken by concern police authority against Mrs. Girija Akhand Singh & Mr. Akahnd Singh. Having PAN NO. ******732P submitted inflated balance sheet of his firm and fraudulent record which was mentioned in my application.

5. Kindly furnish action taken report by vigilance officer of banking division and concern officer of central vigilance commission New Delhi.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. In your RTI Application, you have sought information regarding complaint made under the provisions of Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer (PIDPI) Resolution.

2. You may note that the Designated Agency i.e. Central Vigilance Commission has the responsibility under the above said Resolution to keep the identity/details of the "PIDPI Complainant/Whistle Blower" Secret. If any information is provided regarding a Complaint made under PIDPI Resolution, it would confirm/reveal the identity of the "PIDPI Complainant/Whistle Blower" and cause serious threat to his life and liberty. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of the PIDPI Resolution, any details about the complaint received under PIDPI Resolution, as mentioned by you in your RTI Application cannot be provided, as per provisions contained under Section 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act 2005.

3. It may be noted that the complaints received under PIDPI Resolution are processed as per a laid down procedure in the Commission under which the identity of the complainant is masked right at the initial stage in the PIDPI Cell of the Commission, and the complaint is delinked from the PIDPI Complainant.

4. At this stage it is nearly impossible to correlate the information with the complaint stated to have been filed in the Commission.

5. In any case, if the complaint is linked with the complainant, it would result in disclosure of the identity which would be a violation of the provisions of PIDPI Resolution.

6. The PIDPI complainants receive communication from the Commission, in case their PIDPI complaint is taken up for investigation. Since the launching of the new complaints portal in November 2022, all PIDPI complainants can track the status of their complaints through a unique number generated by the system and sent to them directly.

7. In a similar RTI matter pertaining to PIDPI complaints a Writ Petition was filed vide WP(C) 5105/2021 in the High Court of Delhi and the matter is currently sub-

judice.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.08.2023. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.04.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Roopal Prakash, CPIO and Mr. SK Gwaliya, ACPIO attended the hearing in Person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023 stating that Central Vigilance Commission has the responsibility to keep the Page 3 of 5 identity/details of the PIDPI complainant/Whistle Blower secret. If any information is provided regarding the complaint made under PIDPI Resolution, it would confirm/reveal the identity of PIDPI Complainant and cause serious threat to his life and liberty. Therefore, disclosing any details about the complaint received under PIDPI Resolution, would be against the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act 2005.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, remarked at the pendency of the matters before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court where disclosures ordered in PIDPI matters by the CIC have been challenged by CVC and the same stand pending as on date. A series of directions ordered by a former coordinate bench with respect to the records of PIDPI Resolution has been challenged by CVC before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide the following cases:

1. W.P.(C) 5105/2021 & CM APPL. 15643/2021 - CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

2. W.P.(C) 5596/2021 & CM APPL. 17444/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. MANISHA SINGH

3. W.P.(C) 5600/2021 & CM APPL. 17451/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. O. ABDUL HAMEED

4. W.P.(C) 5674/2021 & CM APPL. 17722/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. ASHWANI KUMAR Having regard to the pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court, the Commission does not find it proper to proceed on merits with the instant matter which is premised on the same subject matter. The Appellant is at liberty to pursue the matter afresh upon the finality of the above said litigation. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 18.02.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कु मार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110023 2 Anita A Singh Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)