Central Information Commission
Vihar Durve vs Cbi on 30 August, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/120611/SD
Vihar Durve ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
5 - B, 5th Floor,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 07/12/2017
CPIO replied on : 09/02/2018
First appeal filed on : 19/02/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 21/03/2018
Second Appeal dated : 24/03/2018
Date of Hearing : 28/08/2019
Date of Interim Decision : 28/08/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 6 points regarding total legal expenditure/consultation fees (in India and abroad); total travelling expenditure; names of Advocates, Legal Consultants, Senior Advoctes, Solicitors, Barristers etc. to whom legal fees/consultation fees etc. were paid by Indian Government to bring back Vijay Mallya to India.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Ravi Gambhir, SP & Rep. of CPIO and Rattan Deep Singh, PP, SIT, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi present in person.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the exemption quoted by the CPIO, CBI vide their reply dated 09.02.2018.
Rep. of CPIO submitted that they have invoked Section 24(1) of the RTI Act as CBI has been placed at Sl. No.23 of the Second Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 vide Notification No. F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of Govt. of India and as such RTI Act is not applicable to the organization except where specific allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation have been made. He further submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is also exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as there are two cases vide a. RC8(E)2016/BS&FD, Delhi and b. RC6(E)15, IDBI, BS&FB, Mumbai are still pending adjudication.
Appellant interjected to state that the CPIO has wrongly invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without justifying as to how the information sought in the present RTI Application shall impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. He further stated that the information sought pertains to corruption since Vijay Mallya has been involved in corrupt practices as well as duped Banks to the tune of Rs. 9,000 Crores. He furthermore stated that this is a fit case of human rights violation since the Central Government has decided to lodge Vijay Mallya at Arthur Road Jail, Mumbai after his extradition and that the condition of the said jail is unhygienic as well as unsafe to Vijay Mallya. In addition, Appellant urged before the bench that elements of corruption and human rights violation are to be seen in separate facets.
Interim Decision Commission observes that the Rep. of CPIO has raised a new issue of exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act during hearing. Commission directs him to send a written submission highlighting the factum as to how the information 2 sought in the instant RTI Application is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act within 7 days of receipt of this order. A copy of the written submission should also be sent to the Appellant who can send counter submission, if he desires within 7 days of receiving written submission of the CPIO, CBI.
The appeal is reserved for Final Order.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by User
Date: 2019.08.30 13:06:16 IST
3