Copy of a complaint along with action taken on was denied - Respondent: Complaint was finalised by CBI-ACB in 2015 and as per record retention schedule of 3 years, the same was weeded out therefore it could not have been provided - CIC upheld the denial
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2022 seeking the following information:
1. “During the course of trial of this case before the court of special court of CBI, Chandigarh, a witness has deposed before the court that Baljit Chadhary S/O Chaman Lal R/O Vill. Shampur Distt. Roper Pb. (At that time Hawalati in Roper Jail Punjab) sent a complaint against SL. Sushil Kumar and other Police Officers of Chandigarh Police of Crime Branch Chandigarh on 20.6.2015 by post from Roper Jail Punjab. The said complaint was address to SP/ CBI, Sector 30A Chandigarh and copies sent to number of different authorities by post on 20.6.2015. The said complaint was interested / marked to Insp. Manmeet Singh, ACB, CBI Chandigarh for enquiry. As mobile no 9814396539 of the witness was mentioned at the bottom of the complaint. The witness was contacted over phone by Insp. Manmeet Singh, ACB, CBI Chandigarh
For the purpose of leading evidence, certified/ attested copy of the said complaint along with action taken on it is required by the applicant. (A Copy of the said complaint is being enclosed for ready reference)
2. In addition attested /certified copies of the visitor’s register maintained at the entry gate of CBI office, Sector 30 Chandigarh from the period 1.6,2015 to 3. 6. 2015, containing entries of the visitors may also be made available to the applicant”
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the applicant filed a First Appeal dated 19.10.2022. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: P S Rana, ASP & Rep. of CPIO present through video conference.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that the Complaint referred to at point no.1 of the RTI Application was finalised by CBI-ACB in the year 2015 and as per record retention schedule of 3 years, the same was weeded out therefore it could not have been provided. As for point no.2, applicable exemption of the RTI Act was invoked for denying the information as it sought for visitor’s register which contained information related to various third parties. He further submitted that a reply to the instant RTI Application was provided to the Appellant on the same lines on 19.12.2022 which was duly acknowledged by the Appellant, however, he regrets the failure to adhere to the stipulated timeline for providing the reply.
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions finds no scope of action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Sushil Kumar v. CBI, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/157789; Date of Decision: 18/07/2023