Central Information Commission
Mr. Rajkishore Prasad vs Central Vigilance Commission on 13 February, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No.306, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
CIC/SM/A/2013/000721/SS
Dated: 13.2.2014
Appellant : R.K. Prasad
Respondent : Central Vigilance Commission, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 13.2.14
ORDER
1. Appellant has filed the present appeal through letter dated 17.4.13. During the hearing, appellant was absent. Respondent public authority was represented by Shri Suresh Munshi, Advisor and Ms. Suneja Janardhan, Section Officer.
2. In his RTI application dated 21.1.13, the following information was sought by the appellant:
"Please provide the applicant in full detail about the case of CVC office '(a) Bank Vigilance officer has to suffer because of exposing scam, Central Bank of India's GM Abhijeet Ghosh and Chariman H.A. Daruwala have entered into arguments on taking money for giving clean chit in dismissals from service.
(b)Resuming the service of Devendra Singh and removing Raj Kishore Prasad after taking money for their involvement in a swindling of Rs. 5.10 lakh at Lakhisram Khagaur Branch and the matter to be inquired into by ZO VO ZO Patna/CVO Mumbai and the findings of the inquiry to be given to the applicant.'"
3. CPIO has given its response through letter dated 25.1.13 as follows:
" You have not sought any information from the Commission. Instead of that you have stated certain events. It is to be noted that according to the RTI Act applicant can get information in accordance with S.2(f) which is available with the CPIO."
4. Thereafter, appellant filed an appeal against the order of the CPIO. FAA has stated in his order dated 18.4.13 as follows :
" I've seen the records and found that in para 5(a) of the RTI application appellant has mentioned a particular incident, but the appellant has not clarified what he seeks from the Commission. Therefore, no information can be provided to the appellant on that point.
At para 5(b) of the RTI application, it is found that appellant has urged the Commission to take certain actions which cannot be done under the provisions of the RTI Act, as has been held by CIC in Pratap Sing Gandaj v. Delhi Police in which CIC has held that 'RTI Act cannot be used to get a work done by CPIO in a specified time period or in a specified way. It can only be used to obtain the information."
5. Under the RTI Act, 2005, it is the 'information' defined under S.2(f) which can be obtained. In the present case, the information sought does not falls within the definition of S.2(f). Therefore, the same could not be provided under the RTI Act. The order of the FAA is upheld.
6. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed.
(Sushma Singh) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Address of the Parties:
1. Shri S.N. Munshi, Consultant & CPIO., Central Vigilance Commission Satarkata Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex, Block - A, INA, New Delhi - 110023.
2. The Addl Secretary & FAA, Central Vigilance Commission Satarkata Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex, Block - A, INA, New Delhi - 110023.
3. Mr. Rajkishore Prasad, R.M.S. Colony, Urdu Bazar, Bhagalpur - 2, Bihar.