Central Information Commission
Mr.Dharam Vir Khosla vs Cbi on 10 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No CIC/WB/C/2009/000039 dated 16/02/2009
Right to Information Act 2005-Section 18(1)(a)
Appellant: Mr. Dharam Vir Khosla
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI)
Decision announced 10.9.2010
FACTS
By an application dated 15.09.2008 Shri Dharam Vir Khosla of Hoshiarpur, Punjab has sought CPIO CBI's advice "As to whether the judgment dated the 30th day of May, 2008 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh as passed in an as confirming the Murder Reference case, titled as "State Versus Vikram Singh and others, no. 1 of 2007 and as made by the Sessions Judge, Shri G.K. Rai, Hoshiarpur u/s 366 Cr.P.C. in terms of his judgment duties 20.12.2006/ 21.12.2006 u/s 302, 364-A, 201, 120-(B) IPC duly submitted with the fee as prescribed under RTI Act". On not receiving any response from the CPIO within the stipulated time Shri Khosla filed a complaint before us under section 18(1) (a) of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission registered the case under section 18(1) (a) and called for the comments of CPIO on 30.12.2009.
The comments of Shri S.K. Palsania, AIG (P) & CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation dated 8.1.'10 have been received in which he has submitted, "On perusal of photocopy of envelope, it is not clear as to where the letter was delivered at "PIO, CBI, New Delhi" an incomplete address. It is submitted that the RTI applications are accepted and promptly responded to in CBI. The applicant has neither mentioned the name of CPIO nor mentioned complete office address of CBI in New Delhi and this there is every likelihood that the application did not reach right place.
The applicant vide his RTI request dated 20.08.2008 enclosing therewith a copy of representation dated 15.07.2008 has sought advice/opinion/views of CBI 1 in judgment dated 30.05.2008 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in murder reference case titled as State vs. Vikram Singh & others. The RTI Act does not envisage responsibilities on CPIO to give advice/opinion in any matter. Moreover, there is no linkage whether the aforesaid judgment was passed in any CBI case, as no details are given. Thus, it would not be possible to offer any comments on the contents of the said judgment."
To this complainant Shri Khosla has submitted a rejoinder and prayed that the Commission may take the issue of "required legal accountability in the interests of justice".
Decision Notice The website of the Central Bureau of Investigation indeed list the details of the CPIO for the various branches not only in New Delhi but also at other places in India and therefore the address as Public Information Officer (CBI), New Delhi is certainly not sufficient for any Branch of CBI to accept. To this extent non response of RTI application of Shri Khosla in dispute as indicated above cannot be treated as malafide, as submitted by the complainant in his rejoinder. Besides, the requested information is indeed seeking advice on a Judgment, which is not covered by the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act unless otherwise recorded. Besides, it is not the business of this Commission to dispense justice, which is the province of a court of law. The RTI is simply an instrument to access information as clearly defined in sec 2 sub-Sections (f) and (j). The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Announced on this the tenth day of September 2010 in open chambers. Notice of this Decision be given free of cost to all parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10.09.2010 2 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(PK Shreyaskar) Jt. Registrar 10.09.2010 3