Central Information Commission
Mrajay Singh vs Ministry Of Defence on 13 March, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
Website : cic.gov.in
Telephone No.: +91-11-26105682
File No.CIC/LS/A/2013/001829/RM
Appellant: Col. Ajay Gupta C/o 56 APO
Public Authority: HQ Bengal Area C/o 99 APO
Date of Hearing: 13.03.2014
Date of decision: 13.03.2014
Heard today, dated 13.03.2014 through video conferencing.
Appellant is present.
Public Authority is represented by Col JS Dhodi, PIO.
FACTS
Vide RTI dt 16.4.13, appellant had sought copies of Court of Inquiry including findings and opinion proceedings held in Nov/Dec 2011 relating to CSD scam at MH Panagarh.
2. PIO vide letter dt 16.5.13, informed appellant that a Unit Run Canteen (URC) does not fall under the provisions of RTI Act as per Judge Advocate General letter dt 25.6.2009 and Army HQ letter dt 19.3.10.
3. An appeal was filed on 3.6.13.
4. PIO vide order dt 11.6.13 provided a response.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that on the basis of the Court of Inquiry which related to fraud in the canteen, an FIR had been filed against him with the CBI Hqrs, Kolkata. On submission of a legal notice, a copy of the Court of Inquiry has been provided. However, copy of the findings and the opinion have not been provided and he requires this as it relates to a criminal case registered against him. PIO submitted that copy of Court of Inquiry was not provided through the RTI route but rather as a response to legal notice. PIO referred to a decision of the CIC dt 12.3.10 (CIC/LS/A/2009/001168) wherein the Commission has held that URCs are private 1 canteens and do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act. A reference was also made to a circular of the Judge Advocate General wherein it was held that as per Army Rule 184, while an individual is entitled to copies of such statements/documents contained in the proceedings of Court of Inquiry as are relevant to his defence, the findings/opinion of the Court of Inquiry do not fall within the ambit of entitlement as indicated in the Army Rule. He further submitted that the findings of the Members of the Court are given in confidence and hence have not been provided. The appellant insisted that as a case was registered against him on the basis of this Court of Inquiry, he has a right to be provided the information.
DECISION
6. The Commission in its order dt 26.8.11 (Smt Durgesh Kumari Vs Income Tax department - appeal no.CIC/LS/A/2010/000685) had observed that if the process of prosecution is ongoing, provisions of Section 8(1)(h) would be attracted and hence the information sought is exempt from disclosure. In the light of the above orders of the Commission, the request for copies of findings/opinion is declined.
The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy forwarded to:
The Col Med & CPIO HQ Bengal Area PIN -908751, C/o 99 APO The First Appellate Authority HQ Bengal Area PIN -908751, C/o 99 APO.
Col Ajay Gupta HQ 15 Inf Div PIN -908415. C/o 56 APO (Raghubir Singh) 2 Deputy Registrar .03.2014 3