Copy of inquiry conducted by Custom House was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - Appellant: investigation is completed & report has been submitted to competent authority for decision - CIC: no proof submitted by appellant that investigation is over; appeal rejected

ORDER

FACTS:

1. Vide RTI application dated 22.03.2012 the appellant has sought information on four issues as contained in his Application.

2. CPIO reply dated 03.04.2011, has given the information to the appellant.

3. The first appeal was filed on 13.04.2012 as the desired information was not provided by the CPIO.

4. Vide order dated; 11.05.2012, FAA directed to the CPIO, Chief Commissioner Office, to furnish a copy of DOVs letter dated 30.12.2011 to the appellant.

5. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 18.05.2012 are contained in the Memorandum of appeal.

6. HEARING Appellant heard through telephone. Respondent opted to be absent despite of our due notice to them.

DECISION

It is to be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 22.03.2012, sought some information from the respondents on four issues as contained therein. Respondents vide their response dated 03.04.2011, provided the required information to the appellant on all four issues. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 13.04.2012 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 11.05.2012, upheld the views of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission. On careful perusal of the contents of memorandum of Second Appeal, there appears that appellant wants copy of investigation/inquiry report conducted by any of the section/ formation in the Jawaharlal Nehru, Custom House, Taluka, Uran District, Raigarh. As such, there appears that the appellant is satisfied with the information provided by respondents/ CPIO against the issues no. 1, 2 & 3 only and still aggrieved with CPIO’s views in not providing the required information 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; of the RTI Act 2005 against issue no. 4 of his RTI Application dated 22.03.2012. On the above aspect, the FAA, vide his order dated 11.05.2012, mentioned CPIO’s views as, “the matter is still under investigation with Directorate of Vigilance and Central Vigilance Commission. The disclosure of information, in cases under investigation is exempted according to the provisions of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act till a final decision is made by a competent authority”. As such, he also upheld the views of CPIO in not providing the required information 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; of the RTI Act 2005 against issue no. 4 of the RTI Application by stating that the matter is now pending with DOV and the disclosure of the said information would impede the process of investigation. The appellant was heard telephonically today. According to him the investigation/ inquiry is completed by now and the report thereof has been submitted to the competent authority for final decision. On this very aspect, appellant was queried by the Commission to submit the documentary evidence to the Commission by FAX and he was given the FAX no. of this Bench i.e. 011-26106276 also. Consequently, the appellant has sent a copy of two letters dated 30.12.2011 & 21.05.2012, one page each, by FAX to this Bench. As per the contents of letter dated 30.12.2011, a complaint against CAO at Jawahar Lal Nehru Custom House was forwarded to Chief Commissioner Mumbai Zone-II, with a request to look into and a report may be sent at earliest. Vide another letter dated 21.05.2012, a copy of FAA’s order dated 11.05.2012 along with a copy of letter dated 30.12.2012, Addl. Directorate General (Vigilance) was forwarded to appellant for his information. In view of the above, there is no proof submitted by the appellant that the investigation/ inquiry has since been concluded/completed in the present case. As Such, the Commission feels that the plea taken by respondents/CPIO under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 is still holds good and legally tenable, only, if the investigation/inquiry is still on as on date. Thus, the Second Appeal of the appellant filed against issue no. 4 deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

(M.A. Khan Yusufi)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri. Shatmanyu Sharma v. O/o the Chief Commissioner of Customs Mumbai Zone- II in File No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002266/KY