CIC observed that despite instructions, the appellant has failed to provide a copy of 2nd appeal to the respondent, with the result that the respondent has not been able to submit his written submissions in the matter; Appellant to provide copy in 2 weeks
22 Oct, 2016ORDER
1. Shri Sat Pal filed an application dated 13.07.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General, Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, New Delhi seeking information on six points regarding prosecution sanction issued against him, including
(i) date on which charge sheet along with the documents was received in the Ministry from ITBP,
(ii) details of the complainant of the case and on what basis CBI registered the case against the appellant and copy of the complaint, and
(iii) details of formalities observed by ITBP under ITBP Act before handing over the case to the CBI, and
(iv) copies of relevant orders and note sheets, etc.,
2. The appellant filed second appeal with the Commission on 25.03.2014 on the ground that the CPIO denied the information under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act and the FAA denied the information under 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. The appellant requested the Commission to give directions to the CPIO to provide the information.
Hearing on 25.01.2016
3. The appellant Shri Satpal attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent ITBP was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him in response to his RTI application dated 13.07.2013 on the ground that ITBP has been put at Second Schedule to the Right of Information Act, 2005. Hence, as per provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act, ITBP is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. However, the appellant submitted that the matter relates to allegations of corruption in ITBP. Hence, as per proviso to Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act, information sought by him should be provided.
5. The respondent ITBP in their written submissions dated 21.01.2016 has stated that the second appeal dated 25.03.2014 has not been received in that office due to which it is difficult to ascertain as to what matter has been taken up by the appellant before the Commission. The respondent has, therefore, requested that copy of 2nd appeal dated 25.03.2014 may kindly be provided to ITBP to enable them to make appropriate submissions.
6. The Commission perused the written submissions of the respondent. The Commission observes that inspite of instructions in para 2 of the notice of the hearing dated 04.01.2016, the appellant has failed to provide a copy of the second appeal to the respondent, with the result that the respondent has not been able to submit his written submissions in the matter. The Commission, therefore, directs the appellant to provide a copy of the second appeal to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The matter is adjourned to 29.02.2016 at 1:30 p.m. Hearing on 29.02.2016:
7. The appellant Shri Satpal was not present in person. The respondent Shri Dipesh Juneja, FAA and IG, ITBP was present in person.
8. The respondent submitted that the appellant is seeking information relating to sanction order for prosecution issued against him. The respondent further submitted that prosecution in the matter is at a trial stage in the Competent Court and that providing information/document relating to prosecution sanction against him at this stage may result in impeding the prosecution of the appellant. In view of this, disclosure of information sought by the appellant is exempted 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.
Decision:
9. The Commission agrees with the respondent that providing information to the appellant at this stage may impede the process of prosecution of the appellant as the trial in the matter has not yet been completed. Therefore, providing such information is exempted 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. Hence, information cannot be provided to the appellant at this stage.
10. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Sat Pal v. Indo Tibetan Border Police Force MHA in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001417/SB