Central Information Commission
Sanjiv Chaturvedi vs Cbi on 16 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2024/613692
Sanjiv Chaturvedi ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Bureau of
Investigation, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.01.2024 FA : 28.02.2024 SA : 22.03.2024
CPIO : 12.02.2024 FAO : 18.03.2024 Hearing : 06.05.2025
Date of Decision: 16.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Kindly provide certified copy of P.E. / R.C./ FIR registered on basis of complaint / legal notice dated 14.09.2023, sent on my instruction , by my Advocate Shri Manoj Khanna , Addressed to Shri Praveen Sood, Director, CBI on Subject- Complaint against certain officials of Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), Government of India for making multiple forgeries, fabrications and indulging in criminal conspiracy, to facilitate 'wrongful gain' to an ineligible candidate and to cause 'wrongful loss' to the complainant, for offences under Section 166,167,463,464, 465, 466, 471 and 120-B of India Page 1 of 4 Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in view of order dated 04-07-2023 passed by the Apex court in SLP Civil 11663/2023 (Annexure-2).
2. Kindly provide certified copy of all the file noting / documents/ correspondences regarding processing of letter/ action taken, on letter / legal notice dated 14.09.2023, sent on my instruction , by my Advocate Shri Manoj Khanna , addressed to Shri Praveen Sood, Director, CBI, on SubjectComplaint against certain officials of Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), Government of India for making multiple forgeries, fabrications and indulging in criminal conspiracy, to facilitate 'wrongful gain' to an ineligible candidate and to cause 'wrongful loss' to the complainant, for offences under Section 166,167,463,464, 465, 466, 471 and 120-B of India Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in view of order dated 04-07-2023 passed by the Apex court in SLP Civil 11663/2023 (Annexure-2)
3. Kindly provide certified copy of all the file noting / documents/ correspondences regarding processing of this RTI Application by concerned CPIO and all other concerned officers
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"It is informed that the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand vide its order dated 15.03.2023 passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.27 of 2021 filed by you has observed that you have adequate remedy of preferring a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station for registration of a FIR, if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Even if the FIR is not registered, you have sufficient remedy of invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., or even filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. As such the Hon'ble High Court rejected your prayer for registration of a case by CBI. The same has already been confirmed by the Page 2 of 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 04.07.2023 passed in SLP No.11663/2023 filed by you.
In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court, no action on your complaint was warranted by CBI. Your RTI application is accordingly disposed of."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.03.2024 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 22.03.2024.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Manoj Kumar, Addl. SP and Mr. Navneet Mishra, Inspector, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant emphasised on point no. 2 of the RTI application and stated that he had sought all file noting/documents w.r.t a letter sent by his advocate to the respondent. He stated that neither the CPIO nor the FAA had furnished the above-mentioned documents till date. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that noting and documents in question pertain to the CBI inquiry which contain internal and sensitive documents and the same cannot be provided. Additionally, the CBI is placed in the Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information u/s 24(1) of the Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 12.02.2024 and the submission given by the respondent during the hearing is Page 3 of 4 contradictory. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to furnish a revised reply, as per provisions of the RTI Act, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date:16.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Central Bureau of Investigation, Complaint and Coordination Cell, Policy Division, 10th Floor, CBI Headquarters, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 2 Sanjiv Chaturvedi Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)