Central Information Commission
Ajit Kumar Roy vs Inland Waterways Authority Of India, ... on 7 September, 2018
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/IWAOI/A/2017/137804
Ajit Kumar Roy
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The PIO & Asstt. Secretary (A&E)
Inland Waterway Authority of India,
Head office, A-13, Sec - 1, Noida - 201301.
&
CPIO & Under Secretary (IWT)
Ministry of Shipping, Transport
Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 28.12.2016
CPIO reply : 08.02.2017
First Appeal : 25.03.2017
FAA Order : 26.04.2017
Second Appeal : 30.05.2017
Date of hearing : 28.08.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 28.12.2016 sought copy of report of CVO, IWAI no. IWAI/Vig./2/2015 dated 08.04.2016. The CPIO replied on 08.02.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 25.03.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 26.04.2017 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 30.05.2017.
Page 1 of 3Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order Appellant : Present Respondent : Shri Satish Kumar, Under Secretary cum CPIO along with Smt. Saraswati K., Section Officer cum PIO, Inland Waterways Authority of India During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 08.02.2017 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 26.04.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
During the hearing, the respondent submitted that a certain police investigation was underway in this case and if the CVO's report is disclosed, the disclosure could impede the process of on-going investigation and moreover an FIR had also been lodged against M/s Chinar Shipping and Infrastructure in the present case.
The Commission concurs with the above contention of the respondent authority The Commission observes that a full bench of this Commission in its order dated 28/11/2014 in File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020 - A K Agrawal V/S SEBI and RIL, had held as under: -
"14. This Commission in its decision dated 10.7.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11 (Shankar Sharma & Others Vs. DGIT) observed that the term 'investigation' used in section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally and that no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is Page 2 of 3 taken. This Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 - K.S.Prasad vs SEBI, observed that "...as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Page 3 of 3 Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority." This Commission in CIC/DS/A/2013/000138/MP - Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that the investigation in the matter was complete but further action was under process, and hence it attracted section 8(1)(h) of the Act."
The appellant could not establish the larger public interest involved in the disclosure of information which outweighs the harm which could be caused to the progress of investigation in the present case, in case the sought for information is disclosed. On balance, the Commission considers the reply of the CPIO to be just, proper and comprehensive and decides that interference of the Commission is not called for in this case With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय)
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु त )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Page 3 of 3