Information regarding allegedly fake interception orders by CBI was denied u/s 8(1)(h) – CIC: first appeal was dismissed on account of being time barred, second appeal thus dismissed on grounds of delay without citing any reasons or seeking condonation

ORDER

1. The appelllant was not present for the hearing. The respondent was represented by Shri S.S Sandhu (AIG-P, CBI) and Shri Vivek Dhir (Dy. SP, CBI).

2. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.5.2011 seeking information (8) points in "relation to alleged seven interception orders which appears to be fake". The appellant sought to know the diary no. and dates of the CBI office vide which the request letters were sent to the Home Ministry for issue of the alleged order/sanction for interception, diary no. and dates on which the Home Ministry allegedly issued the orders/sanction to the CBI, copies of covering letters vide which these orders were issued to the MHA etc.

3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.6.2011 stating that "vide notification no. F. no. 1/3/2011-IR dated 9.6.2011 of the Govt. of India, the Cnetral Bureau of Investigation has been put at Sl. No. 23 of the second schedule to Right to Information Act, 2005 and as such RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable to this organisation." As per the order of the first appellate authority the appellant filed first appeal dated 5.4.2012 which was disposed off vide order of the first appellate authority dated 8.5.2012. The appellant has not brought on record the copy of the first appeal. The first appellate authority has concured with the decision of the CPIO and also treated the said first appeal time barred as it was not preferred within 30 days. The appellant submits in his second appeal that the information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violation are not exempt. The respondent submits that even other wise the information sought is exempt 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; of the RTI Act in view of the on going trial related matter. The respondent further submits that the said appeal has been treated as time barred by the first appellate authority.

4. The Commission observes that neither the appellant has given any reason for delay in filing of the first appeal nor has he sought condonation of delay. The first appeal has been filed nearly nine to ten months after the order of the CPIO and has been dismissed by the first appellate authority on those grounds. The appeal is hereby dismissed on grounds of delay without citing any reasons or seeking condonation for the same.

Sushma Singh

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr Rajan Saluja v. Central Bureau of Investigation in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000911/SS