Information was denied u/s 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) on the basis of investigation initiated by a memorandum issued by the respondent - the said memorandum was quashed by CAT - CIC: provide the information if no stay is granted by Higher Court
12 Sep, 2014On the basis of a memorandum issued by the respondents, the matter was investigated & charges were framed against the appellant - the said memorandum was quashed by CAT - respondents denied the required information claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; & 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; on the basis of the investigation - CIC: provide the information if no stay is granted by Higher Court
FACTS:
1. Vide RTI application dated 19.09.2012, the Appellant sought information on the 6 issues.
2. CPIO, vide its response dated 10.10.2012, not provided the information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) of the RTI Act.
3. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on19.10.2012 , as the desired information was not provided
4. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide its order dated 26.11.2012, upheld the decision of CPIO.
5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 16.01.2013, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
6. HEARING
Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION
It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 19.09.2012, sought information from the respondents on six issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 10.10.2012, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant on all issues. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 19.10.2012 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 26.11.2012, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 10.10.2012, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (g) & 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 26.11.2012, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. It is submitted by appellant that Hon’ble division bench of CAT(PB), vide its order dated 01.08.2014, in OA no. 1277/2013 – Sh. Subhash Chander vs. UOI & others, quashed and set aside the respondent’s impugned memorandum dated 12.11.2012, issued to the appellant. It was also ordered by Hon. Principal Bench that the applicant shall not be visited by any adverse action on the part of respondents and he shall not be denied any benefits which he was otherwise entitled to except for the issuance and pendency of the aforesaid memorandum. The respondents are also ordered to comply the directions of Hon. Principal Bench of CAT within period of two months from date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. It is further submitted by the appellant that Hon. CAT(PB) has relied its earlier decision dated 06.12.2013 in OA no. 1011/2013 – Ritu Chaudhary vs. UOI & Others, another decision dated 13.03.2014, in OA No. 838/2013, 839/2013 & 420/2013 filed by Ms. Vilasni, Sh. A S Mahel & Sh. S S Chuahan, which are similar cases to the present one, before passing its order dated 01.08.2014, in OA no. 1277/2013 – Sh. Subhash Chander vs. UOI & others.
5 It is needless to mention here that on the basis of same impugned memorandum dated 12.11.2012, issued by the respondents, the matter was investigated / inquired and charges were framed against the delinquent i.e. appellant. It is also abundantly clear that on the basis of this investigation, the respondents have denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (g) & 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 and learned FAA vide his order dated 26.11.2012, also disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
6. On being queried by the Commission, as to whether respondents would have no objection in providing the required information to the appellant pursuant to quashing and setting aside the very impugned memorandum dated 12.11.2012 by Hon. Division Bench of CAT (PB) vide his order dated 01.08.2014. On this very aspect, it is submitted by Sh. B L Garg, CPIO that respondents are taking a policy decision to challenge the impugned CAT’s order dated 01.08.2014, before higher Court of Law. Thus, he seeks some time.
7. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; especifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 19.09.2012, respondent’s response dated 10.10.2012, FAA’s order dated 26.11.2012 and also the CAT’s decision dated 01.08.2014, in OA no. 1277/2013 – Sh. Subhash Chander vs. UOI & others, CAT’s other decision dated 06.12.2013 in OA no. 1011/2013 – Ritu Chaudhary vs. UOI & Others and CAT’s another decision dated 13.03.2014, in OA No. 38/2013, 839/2013 & 420/2013 filed by Ms. Vilasni, Sh. A S Mahel & Sh. S S Chuahan.
8. In view of the position above and the circumstance of the case, the Commission is of the considered view that the plea taken by CPIO under section 8(1) (g) & 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 does not appear to be justified in the eyes of Law. As such, the same is not legally tenable. In view of this, the Commission feels that, in the present situation, there is no legal hitch in directing the CPIO to provide the required information, issue-wise, to the appellant on his RTI application, in case no stay is granted by the same principal bench of CAT or from the Higher Courts. For this, ten weeks time, from the date of receipt of this order, is hereby afforded to the respondents for the purpose. With these observations, the appellant’s second appeal is hereby closed. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M.A. Khan Yusufi)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Subhash Chander v. Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise in File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000837/KY