Information regarding the certified copy of the note sheet & complaints regarding a particular file were sought - Respondent: The file contained confidential details of other employees & hence could not be furnished - CIC: No intervention required
26 Feb, 2018O R D E R
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified copy of the note sheet and complaints of the File no. 11(39)5/CIU/BPL/2011 from the O/o Commissioner, Bhopal. The CPIO, Central Excise Hqrs vide its letter dated 15.07.2016 informed the Appellant that the said file had not been opened in their office. Dissatisfied by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 09.11.2016 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act,2005. An opportunity of personal hearing was also provided to the Appellant on 18.10.2016. Thereafter, the CPIO vide its letter dated 29.11.2016, in response to a separate RTI application had provided a point wise response to the Appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Suresh Chandra Pandey, AC/CPIO, Bhopal through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Appellant vide his written submission dated 07.01.2018, had requested for an adjournment in the matter citing personal preoccupation. The Respondent informed the Commission that the CPIO and the FAA had suitably responded to the RTI application filed by the Appellant. They had sought exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA in its order dated 09.11.2016 had categorically stated that the information sought by the Appellant was denied from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act,2005. Thereafter, a point wise reply was given by the CPIO vide his letter dated 29.11.2016 in response to a separate RTI application filed by the Appellant raising similar issues. During the hearing, the Commission was also informed that the file sought by the Appellant contained confidential details of other employees and therefore, these details could not be furnished to him. The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Civil Appeal no. 6454 of 2011 Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. which held as under:
“35…... the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions…”
Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 held as under:-
“15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated; and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, ‘right to information’ under Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant”.
A reference was drawn to the Hon’ble Supreme Court observation in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (supra), wherein it has been held:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of "information" and "right to information" under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant........"
Furthermore, the Commission in the decision of K.S. Prasad vs SEBI CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 had held as under:
“…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.”
Similarly, a reference can be made to the decision of the bench of the Commission in Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI CIC/SM/A/2012/000196 dated 28.11.2014 wherein it was held as under:
“15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act. 16. The Commission recognizes the perspective brought out on public interest in the course of the hearing. The appellant had underlined emphatically the dimensions of public interest overriding the protected interest, i.e. the protection given to the ‘fiduciary’ elements. However, the other side argued that the appellant is overstating the public interest without taking into account that the investigation is still going on. We have, therefore, to await the completion of this investigation. It will not be wise for the Commission to speculate as to what conclusions the SEBI will draw.”
DECISION
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chandravanshi v. Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax in Appeal No.:-CIC/CCEBH/A/2017/108029-BJ, Date of Decision: 15.01.2018