Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrnarinder Singh Nagpal vs Ministry Of Defence on 5 May, 2016

                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building (Near Post Office)
                    Old JNU Campus,New Delhi­110067
                      Tel:+91­11­26106140/26179548

                                       File No.CIC/RM/A/14/003696/DP
                                         Date of decision: 05.05.2016
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                      Narinder Singh Nagpal,
                              271,Pant Puri,Lal Kurti,
                              Meerut Cantt.(U.P.)

Respondent                    CPIO
                              O/o Cantonment Board,
                              Meerut(U.P.)

RTI application filed on             14/02/2014
PIO replied on                  26/02/2014
First appeal filed on           12/03/2014
First Appellate Authority order      03/04/2014
Second appeal dated             08/05/2014

Information sought

 Appellant wants the following information:
1. Copy of letter/representation/reply/submission dated 27.01.2014  submitted by Anuj Singh CEE to PCB at station Headquarters.
2. Copy   station   Headquarters   cell   letter   No.   123901/CB/Est   dated  28.1.2014 directing the Cantonment Board   to include in Agenda  of discussion of Board Meeting held on 01.02.2014. 
3. Intimate lawful reason that why CEO D.N. Yadav deleted the said  matter from agenda item No. 173 and added/included toll tax  matter instead of above legal matter.
4. Copy of direction/malicious support of DGDE/GOC­in­Chief/PDDE  if received for said illegal removal of legal  rights/reply/representation/submission of CEE Anuj Singh and  refusal of lawful direction of station Headquarters Cell .

Grounds for Second Appeal: 

The CPIO has not provided the desired information. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Appellant:  Narinder Singh Nagpal present in person. Respondent :  M.A. Jaffar, Office Superintendent & CPIO , Cantonment  Board, Meerut present through VC.
1
Relevant facts emerging during hearing :­  Appellant has alleged corruption charges against certain official and  he wants various other information related to  these officials.
Respondent submitted that information sought by Appellant under para  1,2 and 4 cannot be provided being exempted under section 8(h) of RTI  Act,2005 as the matter is under inquiry and it will adversely affect  the process of investigation. CPIO has also stated that agenda of the  Cantt   Board   Meeting   and   minutes   are   available   on   the   website   of  office. Appellant may obtain all the desired information as per para  3 of his application from the website. However, it is informed that  the   entire   case   file   was   placed   and   discussed   in   the   Cantt   Board  meeting held on 01.02.2014 under agenda item no. 129.
Decision :
Appellant   during   his   submission   mentioned   that   he   makes   RTI  Applications concerning Meerut Cantonment Board in public interest. A  perusal   of   the   current   RTI   Application   brings   out   that   he   has  levelled unsubstantiated and unverified charges of corruption against  the Principal Controller of Defence Estates (PCDE) in Delhi and CEO  of Meerut Cantonment. Above assertions on the part of Appellant is  indicative   of   definite   bias   and   thus   has   failed   to   make   the   RTI  Application  a  tangible  case  of  public  interest  which  will override  protected interests of the department under the exemption clause. In  this back drop Commission does not find any legal flaw in the stand  of   CPIO   that   requested   information   could   not   be   disclosed   at   this  stage.
Commission is satisfied that information sought by the appellant in  paras   1,   2   and   4   of   the   RTI   Application   is   likely   to   impede   the  process   of   inquiry   and   decision   of   Inquiry   Officer/Appellate  Authority and is covered under exemption clause of section 8 (1) (h)  of RTI Act which is reproduced below:
 (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or   prosecution of offenders.

Commission   directs   the   CPIO   to   give   a   copy   of   discussions   under  Agenda   item   129   of   Cantonment   Board   Meeting   of   1/02/2014   to   the  appellant.

Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

 (Divya Prakash Sinha) 2 Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Raghubir Singh) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 3