Central Information Commission
Ruchira vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 17 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DIREN/A/2023/646302
Ruchira .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Enforcement Directorate,
Nagpur Sub Zonal Office, 7th
Floor, Block A, CGO Complex,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440006 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.12.2024
Date of Decision : 16.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 07.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 21.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.09.2023
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1) Number of ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) registered by the office of Enforcement Directorate Nagpur till now.
2) In How many Cases/ ECIR chargesheet is filed by ED office Nagpur
3) In how many cases Application Under Section 44(1)(c) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act for committal of cases in which State Government has filed the charge sheet from regular courts to Special Court designated for PMLA Act has been filed by office of ED."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.07.2023 stating as under:
"Please refer to your application dated 03.07.2023 received in office dated 07.07.2023 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the details of the enquiry conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement, Nagpur Sub-Zonal Office, Nagpur.
The requisite information/ documents cannot be provided by the Directorate of Enforcement as this Directorate has been exempted under Section 8(h) and under section 24 read with the 2nd schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Hence, your request is therefore rejected on above grounds."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.09.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.Page 2 of 4
Respondent: Ms. Rachna Chakraborty, Deputy Director/CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite being served of hearing notice in advance.
The Respondent submitted that the required information cannot be provided to the Appellant as their organisation is exempted under Section 24 read with second schedule of the RTI Act. Further, the Appellant has not provided any documentary proof to prove her allegations of corruption or violation of human rights either in the RTI Application or in her Second Appeal in order to invoke the proviso to Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, agrees with the reply of the respondent that the Enforcement Directorate was included in the list of organization exempted from the purview of the RTI Act as per Section 24 r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act. The appellant has failed to establish the allegation of corruption or human rights violation which may attracts proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act for disclosure of information. In the context of the information sought in the instant matter, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya WP (C) No. 345/ 2018 dated 19.02.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"6. Plainly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the expressed language of Section 24(1) of the Act. Section 24(1) of the Act expressly excludes intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the Second Schedule to the Act and, thus, cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of the Act. The only exception carved out from the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act relates to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Undisputedly, the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be categorized as such information."Page 3 of 4
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office II, Unit No. - 301- 303, Ceejay House, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)