Central Information Commission
Jasdeep Singh vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 7 February, 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/DIREN/A/2022/111010
Jasdeep Singh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Enforcement Directorate (ED),
RTI Cell, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/02/2023
Date of Decision : 06/02/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/11/2021
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 03/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1. How many ECIRs has been registered by the Enforcement Directorate in last l0 years, based on a Private Criminal Complaint made to a Court without any FIR.
2. Please provide the information in following format:
S.No. ECIR No. Year of registration Particulars of Private Criminal Current Status of ECIR Complaint 1
3. Please provide the copy of full proceedings in above mentioned ECIRs.
4. Any other information related to above queries.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Represented by Advocate Neha Rishi and Surya present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that no reply has been provided by the CPIO till date and even the FAA has not dealt with the First Appeal as yet.
Advocate Neha Rishi submitted that as per their records the original RTI Application was never received in their office. However, with respect to the First Appeal she tendered her apologies for its non-adjudication by FAA on the ground that it could have been an oversight due to the pendency of multiple First Appeals at the time. She further sought for an adjournment in the matter to enable them to file a written submission.
The Commission expressed its displeasure at the feeble stance put forth by the Advocates of the CPIO.
Further, the Appellant was counselled regarding the amenability of the Enforcement Directorate to the provisions of the RTI Act as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act which allows for the disclosure of information only in cases pertaining to allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation. In response to it, the Appellant did not contest the matter any further.
Decision:2
The Commission is irked with the nonchalant approach of the Respondent office in the instant matter as neither did the CPIO bother to file any written submissions as per the stipulation contained at para 4 of the notice of hearing nor were his/her representatives able to put forth any substantial argument during the hearing except expressing regret and suppositions about the reasons for the inaction of the FAA.
In view of the contention of the Advocate of the CPIO during the hearing, the present CPIO is hereby directed to file an appropriate affidavit stating to this effect that the instant RTI Application was not received in their office. The said affidavit shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant.
Further, the present CPIO is directed to send a proper written submission explaining the averred noted omissions i.e non filing of any advance written submission in the matter despite the stipulation contained in the notice of hearing as well as the failure to properly represent their case during the hearing. The said written submission of the CPIO shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Any failure on the part of the CPIO to comply with the said directions may attract the penal provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Similarly, the FAA is also directed to send a proper explanation for the omission to decide the instant First Appeal at the relevant time. The written explanation of the FAA shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, stricter action complaint with provisions of the RTI Act may be initiated against the FAA.
Neha Risha, Advocate shall ensure service of this order to the concerned CPIO and the FAA for timely compliance of the above directions. In the event that the onus for the averred omissions rests additionally with any other officer, the instant order shall be served upon such other prima-facie delinquents for tendering their respective written submissions, failing which, such other officers may be deemed as CPIOs in the matter for proceeding under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
As regards the relief sought for in the Appeal, in furtherance of the observations made during the hearing, for the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:3
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.--
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
Now, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow the disclosure of information, if any, as the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter.
With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to be served to the concerned CPIO & FAA through Neha Risha, Advocate.
Present CPIO; & Then FAA.
--(For compliance of directions as above) 4