Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000145SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 1 August 2011
Date of decision : 1 August 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri S K Nagarwal
51, Sitaram Colony,
Ramnagar Sodala,
Jaipur - 302 019.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, GPO Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110 023.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Advisor,
(ii) Shri S.K. Gwaliya, SO/ACPIO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Jaipur studio of the NIC while the Respondents were present in
our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought the copies of a number of records some of
which the CPIO had provided. The remaining records were not provided either
CIC/WB/A/2010/000145
on the ground that these were covered under the Public Interest Disclosures
and Protection of Informer(PIDPI) Resolution or because the matters were
under investigation at the relevant time. The Appellate Authority had endorsed
the decision of the CPIO.
4. At the outset, the Respondents submitted that some of the records which
had not been disclosed because the matters were under investigation at the
relevant time could now be disclosed since the investigations were over.
However, in respect of the copies of the complaints filed under the PIDPI
Resolution, it was argued that such complaints were treated as confidential and
were never disclosed as the disclosure of the identity of the complainant could
endanger his personal safety. Besides, it was also argued that the CIC had, in
its order dated 2 March 2009 in the appeal number CIC/WB/A/2008/01082,
decided that there would be no obligation on the part of the public authority to
disclose the identity of the complainant.
5. After carefully considering the facts of the case and after having gone
through the contents of the relevant records including the three complaints, we
are of the view that the copies of those files and records which had been
withheld earlier on the ground that the matters were under investigation should
now be disclosed. Besides, we are also of the view that the copies of the three
complaints received against Sri Anil Kumar under the PIDPI Resolution should
be disclosed after suitably deleting the name and identity of the complainant
including all references to him in the body of the complaints.
6. We direct the CPIO to provide the above information to the Appellant
within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.
CIC/WB/A/2010/000145
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2010/000145