Central Information Commission
Abhishek Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 28 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITJ/A/2021/120898
Abhishek Kumar .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ITO(HQ), O/o Pr. Commissioner
of Income Tax-2, Jaipur, RTI Cell,
Aayakar Bhawan, Statue Circle,
Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur-302005,
Rajasthan.
CPIO
Central Bureau of Investigation,
RTI Cell, 1, Tilak Mag, C-Scheme,
Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/04/2023
Date of Decision : 21/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 08/04/2021
First appeal filed on : 16/04/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 13/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28/05/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.03.2021 seeking the following information of his case registered by CBI, ACB, Jaipur vide Case No. RC/JAI/2018/A/0023 when he was posted as an Inspector in the O/o-ITO, Ward- 6(2), Jaipur:
1.Certified copy of complaint;
2.Certified copy of FIR;
3.Certified copy of letter whereby information of FIR or FIR was provided;
4.Copy of CD/DVD containing voice recording as well as sample voice of min;
5.Certified copy of CDR of mobile number(+91) 9530400226 (Abhishek Kumar) and (+91)9351366884 (Rohitash Kumar Saini) as available with you;
6.Certified copy of Draft Charge sheet so provided by CBI;
7.Certified copy of Transcription; Verification Memo, Pre-trap Memo, Recovery Memo, Statement of Witness recorded u/s 161 of Cr. PC by the CBI;
8. Certified copy of such documents/evidences whereby it was ascertained that I have demanded money from the complainant Shri Rohitash Kumar Saini with regard to the pending Income Tax proceedings;
9. Certified copy of such documents/evidences whereby it was ascertained that Shri Surendra Pal (Daily Wager) accepted bribe money on instruction of mine; 10 Certified copy of such documents whereby it was ascertained that criminal conspiracy u/s 1208 of IPC was committed by me with Surendra Pal; 11 Certified copy of Final Investigation Report so provided by the CBI; 12 Certified copy of Letter of CBI, ACB, Jaipur whereby sanction of prosecution was solicited;
13 Certified copy of such documents/evidences on which reliance was made independently in order to pass Sanction Order for Prosecution in my case; 14 Certified copy of Note-sheet prepared in your office file for the work related to prosecution in my case;
15 Certified copy of Sanction Order for Prosecution in my case; 16 Certified copy of all relevant documents not listed above and available in your good office related to above case;
The CPIO, O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur transferred the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for necessary action on 24.03.2021.
Subsequently, the CPIO, O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur provided another reply to the Appellant on 08.04.2021 stating as under:
2The CPIO, CBI, Jaipur provided a reply to the Appellant on 09.04.2021 stating as under:
"2. The documents/information has been sought from the CPIO, Pr/ Commissioner of Income Tax-II, NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur. The documents at Sl. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 15 also pertain to CBI and have already been submitted in court along with chargesheet filed against the accused (RTI applicant). The original documents are in court and certified copies thereof cannot be given accordingly. The accused applicant has already been provided a copy of these documents in the court under provisions of Cr.P.C. The documents at Si. No. 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 & 16 pertain to records maintained in 0/0 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-II for which the RTI application is being, transferred to CPIO, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-II under section 6(3) of RTI Act.
3. As regards documents at Sl. No. 6, 11 & 12 (these also pertain to CBI also), exemption u/s 8(1)/(h) of RTI Act is sought as such information would impede the process of prosecution of offenders."
Being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, O/o Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Jaipur, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2021. FAA's order dated 13.05.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"Grounds:
(1) The impugned order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority (hereinafter stated as "FAA") dated 13.05.2021 upholding the order of the CPIO dated 08.04.2021 is incorrect, illegal, flawed and contrary to the provisions and sprit of the RTI Act, 2005, thus, it is liable to be set-aside with a direction to the CPIO to provide the solicited information.
(2) The Ld. FAA has grossly erred in upholding the order of the CPIO for denying the information on the ground that the information is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is bad in law and against the principle of 3 natural justice. Thus, the impugned order of the Ld. FAA is liable to be set-aside with a direction to the CPIO to provide point-wise information to the appellant within time bound frame, which the appellant needs to fairly defend the court case of the appellant against the CBI, ACB, Jaipur before the Court of law.
(3) The Ld. FAA has grossly erred in taking plea that the departmental proceedings is pending against the appellant and providing the requisite information will hamper the departmental proceedings. But, the Ld. FAA has not mentioned any cogent reason as to how and why the departmental proceedings will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question. Since, the RTI application of the appellant completely pertains to court proceedings of the appellant against the CBI, ACB, Jaipur and not to departmental proceedings, therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. FAA is liable to be set-aside as it is flawed and is against the Principle of Natural Justice and Fundamental Right of the appellant.
(4) That the information belongs to life, security, entire career and liberty of the appellant as a court case is subjudice against the CBI, ACB, Jaipur before the Court of Law. Since, the requisite information involves wider public interest, therefore, the requisite information may be provided to the appellant.
PRAYER:
(i) that without suppressing any information and being very fair with the facts of this appeal as well as with your honour, the appellant pleads at the very outset. Briefly, it is respectfully submitted before your honour that on the basis of fictitious complaint filed by one person, the CBI, ACB, Jaipur has forcefully implicated the appellant in a corruption case and has filed an FIR. After completing investigation, the CBI, ACB, Jaipur has filed Charge-sheet before the Special Court of CBI at Jaipur against the appellant on 31.07.2019. The same is subjudice before the Court of Law. Since, the appellant is innocent and would like to fairly defend the criminal case before Court of Law as it is matter of life, liberty, entire career and justice of the appellant, therefore, some information has been solicited under the RTI Act, 2005 from the CPIO, O/o-Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as "the CPIO") vide application dated 10.03.2021 with respect of certain aspects only belonging to criminal case which is subjudice before the Court of Law.
XXX It is worthwhile to mention here that all the information completely pertains to criminal case against the appellant which is subjudice before the Special Court of CBI at Jaipur.
4(iii) that in response to the RTI application, the CPIO has written a letter to the CPIO, O/o-the Director General, CBI, Jaipur vide letter No. 3111 dated 12.03.2021 mentioning that some information as solicited in RTI application also pertains to your office and requested to provide the same to the appellant. Subsequently, the CPIO passed the order of the RTI on 08.04.2021 mentioning that providing the solicited documents would impede and hamper the departmental proceedings and which is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Mere mentioning the solicited information would impede and hamper the departmental proceedings would not absolve the CPIO from meeting his liability and responsibility of the CPIO whereas the CPIO must have mentioned cogent reasons as to how and why the departmental proceedings will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.
(iv) that the CPIO, CBI, Jaipur, with response to the CPIO letter dated 12.03.2021, passed the RTI order bearing No. 312/RTI Act.2005/03/2021/CBI/JAI dated 09.04.2021 mentioning that documents mentioned at Sr. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 15 pertains to CBI and original copy of the same are in Court, therefore, certified copy can't be provided to the appellant (Copy enclosed). The appellant agrees with the CPIO, CBI that documents mentioned at Sr. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 15 have already been provided by the Hon'ble Special CBI Court, Jaipur whereas remaining documents are in the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur. Thus, the liability and responsibility to provide solicited documents other than Sr. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 15 is only held with the CPIO, O/o-PCIT-2, Jaipur. It is surprising to say that the Learned First Appellate Authority (hereinafter stated as "FAA") has simply resorted to the view of the CPIO, CBI stated that since, the CPIO does not have original copies of said documents including Sr. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 15, therefore, certified copies of the same can't be provided to the appellant. It is well aware here that many correspondences are made between the Prosecution Sanction Authority, i.e. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur and the CBI, ACB, Jaipur before passing the Prosecution Sanction Order in the criminal court case which is better known to the CPIO. As the Prosecution Sanction Authority has surely issued some documents with her signature, i.e. Prosecution Sanction Order, office note, etc. then how it is possible that the original documents other than mentioned at Sr. No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 15 as solicited under RTI are not in possession of the CPIO. Thus, it establishes that the Ld. FAA has taken the appeal of the appellant in very hasty and casual manner to only dispose and such types of resorting view by the Ld. FAA with a very casual manner can't be absolved the FAA from discharging her onus towards her duty as appellate authority. Such types of act/decision of the Ld. FAA would definitely impede and hamper the administration of justice of the appellant and administration of justice must not be frustrated by withholding the solicited documents as justice is to be done in the case of the appellant and it is mainly and 5 only the focus to file RTI application. Despite, if the CPIO does not have original copies of said documents, then, the CPIO may kindly be directed to provide copies of aforesaid documents so available in whichever form with the CPIO so as to enable the appellant to fairly defend his case before the Court of Law.
(v) that the Ld. FAA has grossly erred in upholding the order of the CPIO while passing the appellate order dated 13.05.2021, simply mentioning that premature disclosure of information at this stage will definitely hamper and impede the on-going departmental proceedings as well as criminal prosecution. It seems that the Ld. FAA is predetermined to reject the first appeal of the appellant as the Ld. FAA has not mentioned any cogent reason as to how and why the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution would impede and hamper as the CPIO already did so. Mere reproducing the wording of the section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not sufficient to reject the application under RTI and it can't absolve the Ld. FAA from discharging her duty towards to give fair justice without prejudiced with anyone. It seems that the Ld. FAA has passed the appellate order in very hasty manner without providing even a single opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Thus, the appellate order of the Ld. FAA is bad in law and erroneous and liable to be set-aside with a direction to the CPIO to provide requisite information under RTI Act.
(vi) that in the appellate order, the Ld. FAA has relied various appellate order of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble CIC, which are completely different from the case of the appellant. The Ld. FAA has grossly erred in relying upon the appellate order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Surinder Pal Singh Vs.UOI & Ors. against the case of the appellant. The case of Surinder Pal Singh is completely different from the case of the appellant and do only pertains to the departmental proceedings whereas in the case of the appellant, the solicited documents do only pertain to the court case. The Ld. FAA has also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble CIC in the case of Shankar Sharma & Ors. Vs. DGIT, Govind Jha Vs. Army Hq., V K Gulati Vs. DG Vigilance Customs & Central Excise and Prabhu Dayal Vs. CPIO, Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Services Tax, Jaipur and all these appeal only pertains to departmental proceedings. Further, it is more important that the appeal of the appellant only pertains to court case, despite, the Ld. FAA and the CPIO wrongly stated that providing the information would impede and hamper the departmental proceedings without mentioning cogent reason as to how and why the solicited information would impede and hamper the departmental proceedings. Since, relied appellate orders are quite different from the case of the appellant, therefore, reliance of the Ld. FAA is completely bad-in- law and is very casual approach. It establishes that the Ld. FAA has passed a hasty appellate order in very casual manner ignoring the facts of the case of the 6 appellant and escaping his burden/onus to prove the solicited information would impede and hamper the departmental proceedings and criminal court proceedings, which is liable to be set-aside.
(vii) that the Ld. FAA has grossly erred in holding the order the CPIO as the CPIO have wrongly resorted to wording of the section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and accordingly....
XXX In the instant case of the appellant, the CBI, ACB, Jaipur had already filed Charge-sheet on 31.07.2019 "after completing investigation" and the same is subjudice before the Court of Law. Since, the investigation agency CBI had already filed Charge-sheet after completion of investigation, therefore, the CPIO should have indicated as to how and why the requisite einformation would impede the investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offender as the requisite information completely belongs to court case against the CBI. Thus, it establishes that the CPIO has taken the RTI application in a very casual manner whereas it is the matter of justice of an innocent employee and matter of his entire career.
(viii) that the appellant has not indicated any possible reason or any grounds to establish that the disclosure of solicited information would even impede and hamper the departmental proceedings. Thus, how the Ld. FAA and the CPIO can mention in the impugned order that the requisite information can impede the departmental proceedings.
Further, it is also worthwhile to mention here that denial of any information so available with the CPIO, which could assist an alleged person for establishing his innocence or for pursuing his defence, before Court of Law, may, in fact, impede the course of justice. After completing the investigation by any investigation agency, the information as sought by any person can only be denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act when the CPIO establishes that such disclosure would interfere with the course of prosecution or in apprehending the person. It is not open for the CPIO to casually deny the requisite information on the ground that such information may assist the person in pursuing his defence before the court of law. This is clearly not the import of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and denial of requisite information would be impeded from pursuing his defence for establishing his innocence. Thus, the decision of the Ld. FAA should be set-aside as it is erroneous and bad-in-law.
XXX 7
(xii) .... Further, the appellant also agrees that the Department has already issued charge-sheet framing charges and Inquiry Officer (IO) along-with Presenting Officer (PO) has already been appointed in the case of the appellant. But, the solicited documents as Sr. No. 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 16 do only pertain to the court case proceedings and the same is also better known to the CPIO as well as the Ld. FAA. All these documents only needs to the appellant to pursue his fair defence before the Court of Law so as to establish him innocent. Based on the said position and with a view to principle of natural justice and there is nothing to hamper, the impugned order of the Ld. FAA to uphold the order of the CPIO is liable to be set-aside as it is against the established fundamental right and human rights of the appellant and the CPIO may be directed to provide the requisite information within stipulated time.
XXX (xviii) that the appellant relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 22.04.2015 in the case of Union of India Vs. Shri O. P. Nahar Vide order No. W.P.(C) 405/2014. Vide the appellate order, the Hon'ble High Court held that: -
'13. A careful reading of the provision would show that the holder of the information can only withhold the information if, it is able to demonstrate that the information would "impede" the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders.
14. In the present case, the facts, as set out hereinabove, clearly demonstrate that the investigation is over. The charge sheet in the case was filed, as far back as on 31.12.2010.
14.1 The question then is, would the information sought for by the respondent "impede" the respondent's apprehension or prosecution. The respondent is in court and he says that he has been granted bail by the W.P.(C) 3616/2012 & W.P.(C) 405/2014 Page 9 of 9 competent court.
Therefore, prima-facia, the view of the competent court, which is trying him, is that there is no impediment in apprehending the respondent, and that he would be available as and when required by the court. The petition makes no averments as to how the information sought for by the respondent would prevent his prosecution.
14.2 In that view of the matter, according to me the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act will not help the cause of the petitioner. Accordingly, the information, as directed by the CIC, will have to be supplied to the 8 respondent. It so ordered. In support of this proposition, I may only advert to the following judgments of this Court (See Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner [2008 (100) DRJ 63]; B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court [180 (2011) DLT 303]; Adesh Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. [216 (2015) DLT 230]; Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Anr. v. Bhagat Singh and Anr. [(2008) 168 TAXMAN 190 (Delhi)]; Sudhir Ranjan Senapati v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.P.(C) 7048/2011 dated 5.3.2013; and Pradeep Singh Jadon v. UOI, W.P.(C) 7863/2013 dated 2.2.2015, which have taken similar view on this issue.' The Hon'ble Delhi High Court clearly buttresses the plea of the appellant and decision and facts of the case is quite similar to the case of the appellant as the chargesheet of the case of the appellant was already filed as far back as on 31.07.2019 by the CBI before the Court of Law after completing the investigation. Further, the Ld. FAA and the CPIO have failed to give cogent reason as to how and why the providing the solicited information would impede and hamper criminal court proceedings. Relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, it is requested to the impugned order of the Ld. FAA should be set-aside with a direction to the CPIO to provide the solicited information..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent No.1: Nawal Kumar Sharma, ITO (Hqrs.) & CPIO present through audio conference.
Respondent No.2: Dhirraj Sharma, DSP & Rep. of CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant was heard at length on the same grounds as that of the Second Appeal, contents of which have been reproduced above and for the sake of brevity, the same is not being reiterated here.
Respondent No.1 invited the attention of the bench to his written submissions stating as under:
"1. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that disciplinary proceedings against applicant was under way and had not reached final conclusion and disclosing the information sought by applicant would impede the proceedings and thus attracts the exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble CIC vide it order 9 dated 06.12.2021 in the case of Mr. R. K. Bothra versus CPIO 0/o the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur (CIC/CCITJ/A/2020/ 114103, CIC/CCITJ/A/2020/114104 86 CIC/CCITJ/A/2020/114105) (Annexure-A-1) has held as under:
"9. In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the CPIO has rightly denied the information sought under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the proceedings/inquiry are still pending and final decision is yet to be passed by the competent authority, therefore the said denial of information is being upheld by the Commission. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
2. It is also submitted that the confidential folder relating to the information sought by the appellant is not available with the ITO/CPIO, 0/o the Pr.
Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur. It has been transferred to the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC, (AU)-1, Jaipur as being a controlling authority of the appellant. The copy of notice issued by the Hon'ble CIC dated 08.12.2022 has been forwarded to the ITO/CPIO, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC (AU)-1, Jaipur for information and necessary action.
Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that as informed by ITO/CPIO 0/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC (AU)-1, Jaipur that the folder of departmental enquiry relating to Shri Abhishek Kumar has already been transferred by him to the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC (AU)-1, Alwar. Therefore, the copy of said notice of the Hon'ble CIC has also been forwarded to the ITO/CPIO 0/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC (AU)-1, Alwar vide this office letter no. 1548 dated 21.12.2022 for information and necessary action. At present Folder relating to information sought by the appellant is available with the ITO/CPIO, 0/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC (AU)-1, Alwar."
Respondent No.2 submitted that the instant appeal does not lie against them and as such the Appellant did not file any First Appeal against the reply provided by their office, therefore their role may be dispensed with in the matter.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant appeal lies specifically against Respondent No.1 for not providing the information on points no. 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 16 of the RTI Application. Further, the sum and substance of the entirety of the Appellant's contentions is that 'information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to court proceedings of the appellant against the CBI, ACB, Jaipur and not to the departmental 10 proceedings', which reason has been quoted by Respondent No.1 & their FAA without any reasons explaining the impediment that is apprehended to be caused to the departmental proceedings by disclosing the information related to the CBI Court case.
Now, it is pertinent to note that the submissions of Respondent No.1 informing the present-day custody of the relevant files lying with the O/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC (AU)-1, Alwar is inconsequential as the instant appeal is against the reply of Respondent No.1 dated 08.04.2021, at which time, the relevant record and the Appellant were under the jurisdiction of the O/o Respondent No.1.
A close scrutiny of the queries referred to by the Appellant reveals that vide points 3, 8, 9, 10, 13 & 16, the information sought for is not in strict consonance with Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for "letter whereby information of FIR or FIR was provided"; "such documents/evidences"; "all relevant documents" as a matter of speculation and not a specific record. In other words, facilitation of "letter whereby information of FIR or FIR was provided";
"such documents/evidences"; "all relevant documents" constrains the CPIO to deduce and interpret the requirement of the Appellant. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
11"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in 12 any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the determination of appropriateness of the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act for the above said points is unwarranted.
Similarly, as for points 6, 11 & 12, the Appellant has not filed any First Appeal against the reply of the CPIO, CBI against the reply provided to the said points but has desired for Respondent No.1 to provide the information for these points even as it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the concerned record holder as per Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act for these points was Respondent No.2. Therefore, the instant appeal for these points against Respondent No.1 is summarily rejected and against Respondent No.2, the Second Appeal is not maintainable.
The foregoing discussion leaves little scope for determination of relief only with respect to point no.14 of the RTI Application vis-à-vis the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act invoked by Respondent No.1. In this regard, since the notesheet(s) form integral part of investigation and prosecution processes and what the Appellant has desired for is 'Note-sheet prepared in your office file for the work related to prosecution in my case' which is again an all-pervasive request without specifics, the Commission does not find merit in the objection of the Appellant against the invocation of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the Commission is not in a position to order for any relief in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 13 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 14