CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000293/SG/8793
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000293/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jawahar Lal
141, Opposite New Power House,
Sector 7 Extn. Shastri Nagar,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Respondent : Mr. K. Gurumurty
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Vig)
Ministry of Labour & Employment
O/o the Dy Director (Vigilance),
West Zone 341, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051.
RTI application filed on : 20/07/2009
PIO replied : 22/10/2009(reply by CPOI & Dy. Director
Mumbai)
First appeal filed on : 10/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 25/09/2009
Second Appeal received on : 12/12/2009
Information Sought:
Kindly furnish complete information regarding file no:
1. Vig (WZ) 33(84)2006
2. Vig (WZ) 34(82)2007
3. RJ/JRP/AVS/JL/296
CPIO Reply:
The matter is under police investigation and is prevented by Section 8 (i) (h) of RTI Act. (As per Dy Vigilance
& CPIO Mumbai.)
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Document requested not received within 30 days.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Full information has been given to the applicant and regarding question 1 & 2 the information is not related
with this office.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 5 July 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jawahar Lal;
Respondent: Mr. Vikas Sodai, CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner;
The respondent was holding the information sought at point-3 i.e. file no. RJ/JRP/AVS/JL/296 which
has been provided to the appellant. The respondent had transferred the application in respect of point 1 & 2 to
Dy. Director Vigilance (WZ). Mr. Amit Vashist, PIO & Dy. Director had by his order of 20/10/2009 refused
to give the information on points 1 & 2 claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He had
Page 1 of 2
stated that investigation is on and final decision had not been taken. He had also stated that the case one case
was under investigation by the police. The PIO had not given any specific reasoning showing that disclosure
of information would impede the process of investigation. However, the Commission would have to give him
an opportunity to present his views. Hence the Commission adjourned the matter and fixed the next date of
hearing on 02 August 2010 at 2.30PM.
PIO & Dy. Director Vigilance (West Zone) was directed to appear before the Commission on 02 August 2010
at 2.30PM to present his views as how disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 2 August 2010
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jawahar Lal;
Respondent: Mr. Chandrakant Pagare, Assistant Director (Vig.) on behalf of Mr. K. Gurumurty, PIO on
video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
The respondent states that the appellant has sought information regarding two matters:
1- Regarding a police investigation that is currently going on in Bhopal.
2- Regarding a disproportionate assets case which has been referred to Vigilance Department by CBI.
The respondent argues that in both cases the investigation has not been completed and a final view had not
been taken hence information must not be provided. The Commission asked the respondent to justify how
disclosing the information is likely to impede the process of investigation. The respondent has given some
reasonable arguments which seem to be indicating that revealing information in the case of point-1 above may
impede the process of investigation hence the Commission accepts the denial of information regarding point-
1. Regarding point-2 the respondent admits that in 2008 the investigations were over and the report has been
submitted. The respondent has not been able to make a sufficient case to back his contention that release of
information will impede the process of investigation. Section 8(1)(h) exempts, “information which would
impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;”. In a matter of denying a
fundamental right of citizens it has to be clearly established that the exemption applies and it cannot be a mere
matter of conjuncture. The Commission therefore does not accept the respondent’s plea for exempting
information on point-2 from disclosure.
Decision
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on disproportionate assets case before
20 August 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
02 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ARG)
Page 2 of 2