Action taken by the CBI against Shri Majoj Totla of M/s. Pooja Gas Service for allegedly obtaining LPG Distributorship of IOCL by submitting false documents was sought - PIO: the CBI is beyond the purview of RTI Act - CIC: no action u/s 20(1) against PIO
Shri Radha Mohan Sharma, hereinafter called the complainant, has filed the present complaint dated 6.6.2013 before the Commission against the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Jaipur for denial of information in response to his RTI application dated 2.4.2013. The complainant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Surendra Dhillon, Dy. S.P/CPIO.
2. The complainant through his RTI application dated 2.4.2013 complained to the CBI that Shri Majoj Totla of M/s. Pooja Gas Service sought LPG Distributorship of IOCL by submitting false documents. In this connection he wanted action taken by the CBI, Jaipur. The CPIO vide letter No. 153/RTI05/ 24/2013/PA/CBI/JAI dated 5.6.2013 denied the information stating that the CBI has been exempted from the purview of RTI Act, 2005 vide Notification F. No. 1/3/2011/IR dated 9.6.2011 of DoPT and has been placed at S. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to the Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. As such RTI Act is not applicable to the CBI. The CPIO returned the RTI application to the complainant.
3. The complainant during the hearing submits that the complainant had filed eight RTI applications on the same issue and he had been duly replied to by the CPIO. In of the appeals filed by the complainant before the Commission, the Commission while disposing of the appeal directed the CPIO to apprise the applicant about the status of his complaint. Accordingly, the CPIO vide letter No. 185/RTI Act/File No. 2/PA/CBI/Jpr/2013 dated 1.7.2013, informed applicant that his complaint has already been sent to the CVO, IOCL for further necessary action.
4. The present complaint has been filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 and is being dealt with accordingly. In view of the fact the respondent CPIO vide letter dated 5.6.2013 has replied to the complainant, no action u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act against the CPIO is called for.
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Radha Mohan Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation in Case No. CIC/SM/C/2013/000499/SS