Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001002/SS
Name of Appellant : Sh. Chanchal Kumar Jain
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of Respondent : M/o Law & Justice, Shastri Bhawan
(Represented by Sh. Nirmal Singh,
CPIO, Sh. Jagdish Kumar, S.O., Sh. O.P.
Bagri, CAPIO & Sh. A. K. Srivastava,
S.O.)
The matter was heard on : 9.05.2011
ORDER
Sh. Chanchal Kumar Jain, the Appellant, filed an RTI application dated 5.04.2010
seeking information regarding suspension of Accountant Member, Income Tax Appellant
Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and matters connected therewith. The PIO vide letter dated
6.05.2010 replied to the Appellant. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed an
appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA vide decision dated
16.06.2010 upheld the reply.
[
In his second appeal, the Appellant pleads that he has been wrongly denied the
following information under Section 8(1)(g) & (h) of the RTI Act.
“3. Kindly inform me the names, addresses and designation of each and every person
who has reviewed the suspension of Mr. Jugal Kishore on each and every dates.
4. Kindly provide me the file noting made by the review Committee formed for
extending the suspension order of Mr. Jugal Kishore on each and every date on which
such review had been considered.”
During the hearing the Respondent submit that complete requisite information as
per record has been furnished to the Appellant. However information on point no. 3 has
been denied under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. and on point no. 4 has been denied
under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
[[[[[
After hearing the Respondents and on perusal of the relevant documents on file,
and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
Commission upholds the reply of the PIO on point 3 of the RTI application as the
disclosure of the information on this point may endanger the physical safety of the
concerned person who had given assistance in confidence. However, the reply of the PIO
on point number 4 of the RTI application is set aside. The Respondent have failed to
establish how the disclosure of file notings made by the Review Committee formed for
extending the suspension order is likely to impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders, therefore, concerned PIO is hereby directed to
provide the requisite information on point number 4 of the RTI application. However, the
names / identity of the members of Review Committee may not be disclosed. The
directions of the Commission are to be complied with, within 10 days of receipt of this
order.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
20.05.2011
Authenticated true copy
(S. Padmanabha)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Sh. Chanchal Kumar Jain, Advocate High Court, Calcutta, 53.10.3 Bon Behari Bose
Road, 1st Floor, Howrah-711101 (West Bangal)
2. The Public Information Officer, M/o Law & Justice. Govt. of India, D/o Legal Affairs,
Implementation Cell, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. The Appellate Authority, Jt. Secretary, M/o Law & Justice. Govt. of India, D/o Legal
Affairs, Implementation Cell, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001