Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000847 Right to Information Act 2005 Under Section (19)

Date of hearing: 19 December 2012

Date of decision: 19 December 2012

Name of the Appellant: Shri Yashwant Ganvir, Dy. General Manager, TRIFED, R O Warehouse, NSC Pusa Campus, New Delhi – 110 012.

Name of the Public Authority: CPIO, Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. (TRIFED), (Personnel Division), Head Office, 3, Siri Institutional Area, NCUI Building, 2 Floor, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi 110016.

The Appellant was represented by Shri Lakhi Prasad.

On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:

(i) Shri Sanjeev Mathur, CPIO,

(ii) Shri C D Goswami, Deputy Manager,

(iii) Shri V K Tiwari, Senior Assistant,

(iv) Shri Uday Jhanka, Deputy Manager

Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra

2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions.

3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought two items of information, namely, the certified copy of his annual property returns and the letter written by the TRIFED to the CBI in connection with sanction for prosecution. Somewhat belatedly, the CPIO provided only the copies of the annual property returns but refused to disclose the letter written by the TRIFED to the CBI on the ground that it was exempt from disclosure under the provisions of subsection 1(h) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO regarding not disclosing the second item of information.

4. During the hearing, the Appellant argued that, in this case, the CPIO failed to provide the information in time. He submitted that whatever information was provided had also not been properly certified thereby rendering it useless for any use anywhere. Finally, he submitted that since the investigation in the matter was already over, there was no ground for withholding the letter the TRIFED had written to the CBI in connection with sanction for prosecution. In response, the respondent submitted that the desired information had to be collected from both Personnel and Vigilance divisions while the RTI application was addressed only to the latter and, in the process, some delay took place. As regards the certified copies, they clarified they had no arrangement in their organisation to certify documents and, therefore, the CPIO had attested the documents as true copies of the original. Finally, in respect of the letter written to the CBI, they contended that the Appellant was facing prosecution in a special CBI court and, in their opinion, the disclosure of this particular letter would impede the process of prosecution.

5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. There is no doubt that in this case, there has been some delay. The RTI application had been received on the 31 January 2012 and, consequently, the information should have been provided by 1 March, instead that it was provided on 13th March. The delay of 12 days in this case has been explained by the Respondents as above. However, the fact remains that there has been a delay in this case. We would like the CPIO to keep in mind that the Right to Information (RTI) Act has fixed a time limit for supply of information and all efforts must be made to provide the information within that time limit.

6. As far as the certified copies of the annual property returns are concerned, although the CPIO had provided attested copies, the attestation did not bear the seal of the organisation making it difficult to identify the designation and the organisation of the attesting official. Therefore, in fitness of things, the

CPIO should once again provide the copies of these documents duly attesting those with the seal and signature. We direct him to do so within 10 working days of receiving this order.

7. In respect of the copy of the letter written to the CBI in connection with the sanction for prosecution, we would tend to agree with the decision of the Appellate Authority and not allow this information to be disclosed. It is an admitted fact that the Appellant is facing prosecution in the CBI court. The documents relating to sanction the prosecution have a direct bearing on the case and, if disclosed, could have an adverse effect on the process of prosecution. In any case, if the Appellant is in need of this document, he could always approach the court and if the courts so desires, can allow him to have a copy of that.

8. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)

Chief Information Commissioner