CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000128/SG/13220
Complaint No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000128/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. S.S. Ranawat,
Behind Bara Mandir,
Bahala, Bhilwara- 311001 (Rajasthan)
Respondent : Mr. Pramod Musbsatal
CPIO & Head of Branch,
CBI, Special Crime Branch,
Ap-2 Wing, 8th Floor, CGO Complex,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra
RTI application filed on : 14.08.2010
PIO replied to application on : 23.09.2010
Complaint filed on 07.02.2011
S.No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Two certified copies of extracts of such portion of charge-sheet in The CBI has filed the charge-sheet
connection with the alleged fake encounter of Shourabuddin, filed before the Hon'ble Court of ACIM,
against Sh. Amit Shah, Sh. Ashok Patni, Sh. Rampal Soni, in Ahmedabad and a copy of the same can
which charges have been framed against Sh. Ashok Patni, marble be availed from the concerned Court by
Businessman & Sh. Rampal Soni, Cloth Businessman of submitting fresh applications.
Raajasthan
2. Name and addresses of the alleged persons in above case Further investigation in the case is still
in progress and cannot be provided at
3. Reasons for not summoning Sh. Ashok Patni and Sh. Rampal Soni this stage as per Section 8 (h) of RTI
or taking them into CBI Custody if they're alleged to be accused. Act, 2005
4. Can the applicant lodge a case in the CBI against the above Shri CBI does not have jurisdiction to
Rampal Soni & others for committing economy/other crimes of investigate such complaints.
Govt. Schemes which were obtained while illegal operations of
their industrial units? If yes, then in which branch/office?
Grounds for Complaint:
Misleading and incomplete information provided by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Complainant : Mr. S.S. Ranawat on video conference from NIC-Bhilwara Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Pramod Musbsatal, CPIO & Head of Branch on video conference from NIC-
Mumbai Studio;
The PIO has denied a copy of the charge sheet on the contention that the charge sheet has been
filed in the court and the Complainant can obtain it from the court. Under right to Information any
public authority that holds the information has to provide it, unless it is exempted under Section 8(1)
of the RTI Act. No exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act had been claimed for the charge sheet
which is a public document and hence the PIO must provide copy of the charge sheet to the
Complainant. On query-2 & 3 the PIO has given convincing reasons why the information should not
be disclosed and that if it is disclosed it will impede the process of investigation. The reasons provided
by the PIO appear to be reasonable and hence the Commission upholds the PIO’s decision not to
provide information on queries 2 & 3 under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Complaint is partially allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query-1 to the Complainant
before 25 July 2011.
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
01 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GB)