Central Information Commission
Mr. Vivek Garg vs Cbi on 8 January, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/C/2012/000841 & 842
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 8 January 2013
Date of decision : 8 January 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vivek Garg,
Advocate & RTI Activist,
18/1, GF, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi - 110 007.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption - I, Plot No. 5B,
8th Floor, CGO Complex,
New Delhi - 110 003.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Smt. Meenu Choudhary, SP/CBI was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions.
3. It appears the complainant had made two similar complaints against the Chief Minister of Delhi and other functionaries alleging corruption on their part. It is about these complaints that he had sought a number of information through RTI. His first RTI application dated 21 December 2011 was addressed to the Delhi police whereas the other RTI application dated 30 May 2012 was addressed to the CBI. In the first case, he did not receive any response from CIC/SM/C/2012/000841 & 842 the CPIO in time and, therefore, complained to the CIC against the CPIO. Belatedly though, the CPIO had responded to him with the plea that the CBI was no longer obliged to disclose any information under RTI having been placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In the second matter, the CPIO had responded within the stipulated time period and had denied disclosure of any information on similar ground.
4. We have carefully gone through the records. The RTI application dated 21 December 2011 had been transferred by the Delhi Police to the ACB, CBI. The CPIO of this branch seems to have sat over the application for quite some time and transferred it to his counterpart in the AC 1 branch belatedly. The CPIO of the AC 1 branch responded to the Appellant nearly 3 months beyond the stipulated period, but without giving the information for the reasons stated above. He had also not stated the details of the Appellate Authority, a requirement under section 7 (8) (iii) of the RTI Act and thereby deprived the Appellant any opportunity of approaching the first Appellate Authority. Obviously, the responsibility for both the lapses in this case lies squarely with the CPIO of the ACB. Had he transferred the RTI application within five days of receiving it from the Delhi Police, the CPIO of the AC 1 branch could have responded much earlier. For this delay, the CPIO concerned is liable for penalty under subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Before deciding on the imposition of penalty, we would like him to show cause why such penalty should not imposed on him. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to forward a copy of this order to the CPIO in the ACB so that he can appear before us on 12 February 2012 at 02.45 p.m. and offer his explanation.
5. We are not inclined to pass any order on the desirability or otherwise of disclosing any information in the case because of the ruling of the Supreme CIC/SM/C/2012/000841 & 842 Court in which it has been held that the CIC cannot direct disclosure of information while considering a complaint case under section 18 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
6. Both the appeals are 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/C/2012/000841 & 842