Central Information Commission
Vipin Malik vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 12 November, 2018
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SFIVO/A/2017/140301
Vipin Malik ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Serious Fraud
Investigation Office, M/o ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Corporate Affairs, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 31.03.2017 FA : 13.04.2017 SA : 09.06.2017
CPIO : 05.04.2017 FAO : 16.05.2017 Hearing : 05.11.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi seeking information on eight points pertaining to the case SFIO Versus M/s Daewoo Page 1 of 7 Motors India Limited & Ors, including, inter-alia (i) copies of all documents in the files of Serious Fraud Investigation Office concerning fraud committed by M/s Daewoo Motors India Ltd, (ii) copies of correspondence and order sheets/file notings on Daewoo Motors India Ltd on registration of case and ordering of investigation by ROC (if any) from the year 2000 till date.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant stated that the FAA did not provide him an opportunity of being heard before passing his Order upholding the decision of the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought by him and to impose a penalty on the CPIO for deliberately not providing the information and to compensate him as per the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
Hearing on 23.08.2018:
3. Shri Arif Ansari, representative of the appellant and the respondent, Shri Kundan Lal, Dy. Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the information sought was denied to him on the grounds that the matter is pending before the Competent Court and disclosure of information would adversely affect the proceedings before the Court. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that the proceedings have now been concluded and hence there are no grounds to withhold the information now. The appellant Page 2 of 7 requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for.
5. The respondent requested the Commission to grant him some more time to enable him to make submissions in the matter.
Interim Decision:
6. The Commission considered the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 05.11.2018 at 11.50 am.
Hearing on 05.11.2018:
7. Shri Arif Ansari, representative of the appellant and the respondent, Shri Kundan Lal, Dy. Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi were present in person.
8. The appellant's representative reiterated the submissions made during the earlier hearing held on 23.08.2018. The appellant further submitted that cases nos. 538791 and 538792 have been dismissed by ACMM/Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Hence, there are no grounds to withhold the information sought vide point no. 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant also stated that till date no reply has been received from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, to whom his RTI application was transferred vide letter dated 04.09.2018.
9. The respondent submitted that the appellant is seeking information against the various fraud commuted by M/s Daewoo Motors India Ltd. The respondent further submitted that there are 26 cases filed against M/s Daewoo Motors India Page 3 of 7 Ltd. and 14 cases are still pending before the Court of Law either before the Magistrate or Session Court in Division. The respondent clarified that the cases nos. 538791 and 538792 are related to entire Court case. Further, these cases were dismissed on ground of limitation. The respondent further submitted that initially the appellant was informed vide letter dated 05.04.2017 that the information sought vide point no. 4.1 to 4.8 of the RTI application cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, subsequently, the matter was reviewed, and it was observed that only point nos. 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4 of the RTI application pertains to the SFIO and point nos. 4.2 and 4.5 to 4.8 of the RTI application pertain to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Accordingly, the officers concerned of the SFIO, New Delhi and the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs have been requested to examine the matter and provide the necessary information/documents as sought by the appellant vide his RTI application dated 31.03.2017 directly to him. A copy of the letter dated 04.09.2018 was also provided to the appellant. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for not furnishing an appropriate reply to the appellant vide his letter dated 05.04.2017 and requested the Commission to condone the same. In response to a query, the respondent, however, admitted that he had not mentioned the relevant provisions of the RTI Act while transferring the appellant's RTI application to the officers concerned of the SFIO, New Delhi and the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. He, however, affirmed that though the SFIO is under the administrative control of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, it is a separate public authority.
Page 4 of 7Decision:
10. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent was aware that the information sought for was held by other Divisions of the SFIO as well as by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Nonetheless, the respondent furnished a reply to the RTI application without due application of mind. The Commission observes that the public information officers are entrusted with the responsibility of providing correct and complete information to the citizen under the RTI Act. It is, therefore, expected that the CPIO on receipt of a request shall provide the information sought for by the applicant after due diligence. In this case, the CPIO did not discharge his responsibility properly. The Commission, therefore, would like to counsel the CPIO, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit. The Commission also observes that the respondent should have sought assistance of the officers (of SFIO) concerned, under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, and furnish the information to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide the information sought for vide point nos. 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4 of the RTI application, if required by seeking assistance of the officials concerned under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, to the appellant.
11. The Commission further observes that the RTI application in respect of point nos. 4.2 and 4.5 to 4.8 of the RTI application has been transferred to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs. However, no reply has been furnished yet to the appellant by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Commission, therefore, directs Page 5 of 7 the CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs to provide the information sought for vide point nos. 4.2 and 4.5 to 4.8 of the RTI application to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission. Shri Kundan Lal, Dy. Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon the CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date: 08.11.2018 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2nd Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
2. Shri Vipin Malik, Page 7 of 7