Disclosure of change of decision sanctioning prosecution
The CBI had registered an a trap case against the appellant in 2009 for accepting illegal gratification from a contractor and the sanction for prosecution against the appellant was first denied under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and an order to this effect was passed by DoT. Later, the DoT granted the same. The appellant sought certified copies of all the notings and correspondence of file number 9-9/2009-Vig I; certified copies of all the notings and correspondence of file in which RC0082009A0002 of CBI Bhopal was handled; and Inspection of file no. 9-9/2009-Vig I and of file in which CBI Bhopal case no. RC0082009A002 was handled. The PIO submitted that the requested information cannot be disclosed as the appellant is facing chargesheet in a court of law and the requested information is barred from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority upheld the decision of PIO.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the situation in the present case is not ordinary as the competent authority first declined to accord sanction for prosecution and later changed its mind. The Commission noted that the subsequent order granting sanction for prosecution does not refer to the first order wherein the sanction for prosecution was denied. Thus, the Commission deduced that the two orders stand separately on their own legs and the change of decision appears to have happened in the circumstances which cannot be called normal. Therefore, the Commission held that it would be in the interest of justice and fair play if the appellant is given inspection of the requested records and permitted to take extracts there-from on payment of requisite fee. The orders of the PIO and FAA were set-aside.
Citation: Pradip Singh Jadon v. DoT in File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/002501