Central Information Commission
Mrg R Sharma vs Airport Authority Of India on 17 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/YA/A/2014/003068/BJ
Appellant : Mr. G. R. Sharma
A87, Prince Road,
Harpal Nagar,
Moradabad 244001
Respondent : CPIO & General Manager (HR)
Airport Authority of India
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi 110003
Date of Hearing : 17/05/2016
Date of Decision : 17/05/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 07/08/2014
CPIO's response 09/10/2014
Date of filing the First appeal 01/10/2014
First Appellate Authority's response 16/10/2014
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 18/11/2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant through his RTI application dated 07.08.2014 had sought following information related to CBI, ACB, Lucknow Case no. RC0062011A0013 in the matter of Varanasi Airport:
"1. Whether CBI, Lucknow in 2013 had issued letter seeking Sanction from the department before taking action under Corruption Prevention Act against AAI Officers i.e. Giriraj Sharma, Bhupendra Singh, Dilip Kumar and others. If there are any communications/documents available in the matter copies of the same may kindly be provided.Page 1 of 4
2. Whether competent authority Chairman, AAI after perusing all the records of CBI refused to Sanction or any proposal was given. If any proposal was given then a copy of related notings may kindly be supplied.
3. Whether CBI has submitted their own draft for Sanction to which you have not given the approval.
4. What all documents CBI has submitted before seeking Sanction on the basis of which you have refused the Sanction. Kindly provide a copy of the said letter of CBI."
The CPIO/General Manager(HR) vide letter dated 09/10/2014 refused to provide the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 by stating that the matter is pending before the CBI Court.
Being dissatisfied with the refusal of information under Section 8(1)(h), the appellant filed a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 01/10/2014 stating that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information. The First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 16/10/2014 upheld the decision of the CPIO by stating that the information was rightly denied under Section 8(1)(h| of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. G. R. Sharma (M:9560662916);
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar, Jt. GM (M:9868116660) and Mr. G. L. Verma, AGM (M:9818188894);
The appellant reiterated the submissions made in his RTI application dated 07/08/2014 and contested the reply submitted by CPIO dated 0910/09/2014. It was argued that the depositions by various functionaries of the public authority has already been completed in the ongoing investigation by the CBI. In order to protect his bonafide on the case, he needs copies of the documents from the respondents which are being consistently denied to him. The appellant stated that the information sought had been denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He submitted that he had sought information about himself and hence is entitled to its disclosure.
The respondents stated that an appropriate reply/information was provided to the appellant vide their letter dated 0910/09/2014. It was explained that since the investigation proceedings are still going on and the matter also relates to CBI, the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. The FAA had also upheld this decision.Page 2 of 4
A full bench of this Commission in its order dated 28/11/2014 (File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020
- A K Agrawal V/S RIL) has held as under: "14. This Commission in its decision dated 10.7.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11 (Shankar Sharma & Others Vs. DGIT) observed that the term 'investigation' used in section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally and that no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken. This Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 - K.S.Prasad vs SEBI, observed that "...as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ...which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority." This Commission in CIC/DS/A/2013/000138/MP - Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that the investigation in the matter was complete but further action was under process, and hence it attracted section 8(1)(h) of the Act."
The Commission, in the light of the above judgments, is of the view that the information sought by the appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 till the completion of inquiry.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the submissions made by both the parties and closer scrutiny of the records as also the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, relying on the references of previous judgments pronounced by the Commission in similar matters, it is felt that there is no interference warranted by the Commission in the matter.
The appeal stands disposed.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4