Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000141
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 31 August 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Prem Garg
S/o. Mehraj Garg,
R/o. 1st Floor, Thapar House, 200,
Civil Lines, Park Road, Golghar,
Gorakhpur - 273 009.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Reserve Bank of India,
Department of Administration &
Personnel Management, Central
Office, Amar Bldg., P.M. Marg,
Mumbai - 400 001.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Babu S. Nair was present.
2. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Gorakhpur studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in
the Mumbai studio. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had wanted a number of information regarding the show
cause notice issued by the RBI to the directors of a certain company.
Somewhat belatedly, the CPIO informed him that the desired information could
not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The
CIC/SM/A/2010/000141
Appellate Authority had also endorsed the decision of the CPIO.
4. The Respondents informed that the RBI had lunched criminal
prosecution against the directors of this particular company before a criminal
court and that the disclosure of such information as sought by the Appellant
would have adverse impact on the prosecution of the offenders. They further
submitted that much of these documents had been already furnished to the
court and the accused in the case could obtain copies of those documents from
the criminal court itself. The Appellant on the other hand submitted that
irrespective of whether he could obtain this information from the criminal court
concerned, he should be provided with the copies of these records by the
CPIO.
5. We carefully considered the submissions of both the parties. It is an
admitted fact that the RBI has lunched a criminal prosecution against the
Appellant and some other directors of this company. While we can appreciate
the argument of the Respondents that some of the records sought by the
Appellant formed part of the prosecution records and, therefore, could be
obtained from the court concerned, the information sought in items 2, 3 and 4 of
the RTI application obviously falls in a different category. These items of
information relate to the proof of dispatch of the show cause notice and some
related documents. We do not see how the disclosure of such information
would have any adverse impact on the prosecution. Therefore, we direct the
CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this
order photocopies of the relevant records against these three items.
6. As far as the delay in the matter is concerned, we tend to accept the
CIC/SM/A/2010/000141
explanation given by the Respondents on behalf of the CPIO as reasonable
and do not intend to impose any penalty.
7. The case is, thus, disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/000141