CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2010/000061 dated 8.4.2010
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Shri Manish Bhatnagar
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation
Heard & decision announced: 13.7.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 13.2.10 Shri Manish Bhatnagar of Kalkaji, New Delhi
applied to the CPIO, CBI seeking the following information:
“1. Certified copy of each and every page of the service book of
Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director, CBI, CGO Complex, New
Delhi.
2. Whether any complaint / departmental inquiry / case is filled /
pending against him till date in any tribunal, court, commission etc. in India
or Abroad. If yes, please provide comprehensive details.
3. Please provide the date of appointment of Shri Ashwani
Kumar as Director, CBI, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
4. Please provide all the records and file noting related to the
appointment of Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director, CBI India.
5. Please provide the details of last salary drawn by Shri
Ashwani Kumar, copy of salary slip.
6. Please provide a comprehensive list of benefits including
H.R.A. Telephone expenses, medical, car allowance, travel allowance,
newspaper/magazine, electricity, water, staff etc. given to Shri Ashwani
Kumar by the relevant department since his appointment as Director, CBI
7. Please provide me all the list of bills since his date of
appointment, submitted by Shri Ashwani Kumar to claim any expenses as
mentioned in question 5.
8. Please provide me the details whether Shri Ashwani Kumar
or his family members are having any mobile connection related to these
mobile operators namely Idea, Reliance, Tata, Spice, Airtel, Vodafone,
Aircel etc. If yes, please provide the details of any special trade benefit or
special discount given by the mobile operators to Shri Ashwani Kumar or
his family members? (Please don’t provide the mobile numbers or any
personal identity if the bill is not paid by the Government of India)
9. Please provide the details of all the movable and immovable
properties of Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director, CBI CGO Complex, New
Delhi and his family members.
10. If the above questions relate to any provisions of Sec. 8 & 9,
please provide me the details as how it will affect the investigation.”
1
Upon not receiving a reply, and instead experiencing what he considers to
be harassment, Shri Manish Bhatnagar had moved a complaint before us on
31.3.10 at 6.00 p.m., pleading as follows:
“I have filed an RTI in the department of CBI to seek information
about the appointment of Ashwani Kumar, Director, CBI New Delhi
and some more associated information enclosed herewith as
Annex. A.
That, for the last one week, me and my friend namely Sumit Kumar
Singh are harassed by CBI officials. They have been harassing the
people living in our neighborhood by asking unwanted questions
about my whereabouts.
Today, at about 3.00 p.m. a couple of CBI sleuths reached my
friends place to inquire my whereabouts and threatened him with
dire consequences.
I feel threatened about my life and liberty and I request you to
intervene in this matter and provide necessary safeguards.”
In response to our complaint notice, we have received a report from
AIGP(P) & CPIO, Policy Division, CBI indicating that the application of Shri
Bhatnagar “was further forwarded to the AIG(P)/CPIO, CBI, Policy Division,
North Block, New Delhi by SP, HQ vide CBI H.O. letter No.
DPSPH2010/184/43/10/RIAct/200SPHQ dated 15.3.2010.” Upon this, through
two letters of 25.3.10, CPIO Shri S. K. Palsania, AIGP (P) has informed
complainant Shri Bhatnagar as follows:
1. In respect of Point 2 of your RTI request, it is informed that
as per records in CBI, no complaint / inquiry is pending
against Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director, CBI.
2. In respect of point 9 of your request, it is informed that
information relating to movable and immovable properties of
Shri Ashwani Kumar, Director, CBI & his family members is
their personal information and is held in fiduciary
relationship. The information sought is exempted under
Section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005 and accordingly
the information related to details of properties is denied.”
CPIO, has, therefore, maintained that “reply was sent to the appellant at
the given address through speed post on 26.3.2010 but the same was returned
as ‘un delivered’ with the remarks of the Postman on the envelop that “remain
2
closed” (Copy enclosed). The AIG (P)/CPIO had responded to the appellant
within the specified 30 days time period. ” The attached copy of the envelop, of
which the original was displayed in the hearing, clearly shows that the letter was
mailed on 26.3.10 and received back on 3.4.10 with the remarks “remain closed”.
The complaint was heard on 13.7.10. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Manish Bhatnagar
Shri Anshuman G. Dutta
Respondents
Shri Saurabh Tripathi, AIGP
Shri Saurabh Tripathi, AIGP submitted that the letter of 13.2.10 was
received in his office by letter dated 10.3.10 from Shri Vineet Aggarwal, SP, CBI,
ACB, whereas an identical application made to the Ministry of Home Affairs was
received in his office on 8.3.10. The letter from CBI HQ was received on 16.3.10.
His responses are, therefore, well within time. Shri Tripathi also assured that the
CBI is ever ready to provide whatever information is necessary, seeking
exemption only for information exempted from disclosure under the law. He,
however, felt that appellant was publicity hungry and had invented the excuse to
present himself on the written and visual media. This is substantiated by the fact
that in the address provided by Shri Bhatnagar, there is nobody of the name in
the residence. Complainant Sh. Manish Bhatnagar on the other hand, while
agreeing that he had not received the response to his application stated to have
been supplied, submitted that he had also received threatening calls from
telephone No. 9212278122.
DECISION NOTICE
The fact that complainant Shri Bhatnagar has given an incorrect postal
address would lead to the bouncing of letters addressed to him there.
Nevertheless, there remains a shadow of doubt in this regard as the
correspondence sent by the Commission to the same address has indeed been
responded to by complainant. But on the return of the letters, which it is
3
established had indeed occurred, CPIO then would be well within his rights to
make enquiry as to the residence of the complainant so as to better serve him by
mailing responses to the authentic address. In this case the responses
addressed to Shri Manish Bhatnagar by respondents CPIO are attached with this
decision notice.
As for the contents of these responses, because the appellant has raised
no question in this regard, he is advised that should he find them unsatisfactory,
he will be free to appeal u/s 19(1) to Jt. Director (Policy), CBI, Room No. 27,
North Block, New Delhi / 1st appellate authority who is directed to dispose of such
appeal within 15 working days from the date of receipt., CPIO Shri Saurabh
Tripathi will in the meantime, through his own sources, verify the origins of the
calls made to Shri Bhatnagar from the number cited above and if criminal intent
is discovered, will take remedial action forthwith under intimation to Shri Pankaj
KP Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission as well as
complainant Shri Manish Bhatnagar. This exercise will be completed within
fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. The complaint
is disposed off accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13.7.2010
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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
13.7.2010
4