Central Information Commission
Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 8 August, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000779
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 08/08/2013
Date of decision : 08/08/2013
Name of the Appellant : Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal,
1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi 110006
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of External Affairs,
(WAFII) Room No. 268D,South Block,
New Delhi11
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry,
Department of Commerce, Vigilance
Section, Udog Bhawan, New Delhi
110107
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri M.S. Kasana, Advocate,
(ii) Shri A.K. Das, US, MEA,
(iii) Shri M.S. Banerjee, US (FT) ST
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both the parties.
3. The Appellant had sought a number of information relating to the case of export of nonBasmati rice from India, specially to Ghana and the various CIC/SM/A/2013/000779 charges of corruption levelled against that transaction. His RTI application had been handled both in the MEA and the Ministry of Commerce. The CPIO concerned from each of these two ministries had separately responded to the Appellant and provided some information each. The Appellant had appealed against the information provided by the CPIO of the Ministry of Commerce. However, it seems, instead of the Appellate Authority, the CPIO once again wrote to him and reiterated the same information she had sent earlier.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant mainly argued for two items of information, namely, (a) the copy of the letter received from Ghana dated 13 August 2009 and (b) the list of persons/bodies found involved in corrupt practices in export of nonBasmati rice. The CPIO had refused to disclose the information on the ground that investigation into the matter was still underway and, therefore, the information was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)
(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. As far as the list of persons/bodies involved in this entire matter is concerned, we think it would be a little premature to disclose this information before the investigation is complete and the matter is brought to a finality. We direct the CPIO in the Ministry of Commerce to revisit the records and to disclose the desired information within 10 working days of receiving this order, only if the investigation/prosecution in the matter is complete. Otherwise, he need not give any such information.
5. As far as the letter dated 13 August 2009 received from the Republic of Ghana is concerned, the respondent representing the MEA produced the letter for our perusal and submitted that the authorities from Ghana had specifically requested not to disclose the contents of the letter to anyone since it could impede the investigation underway in their country. We think that it is reason enough not to disclose this information. Such information is protected from disclosure under the provision of section 8(1) (a) and (f) of the RTI Act. CIC/SM/A/2013/000779
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2013/000779