Mrs.Mamata Mohapatra vs Cbi on 28 May, 2010

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000122 dated 18.2.2009
                  Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant        -       Ms. Mamta Mohapatra
Respondent           -   Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
                             Decision announced 28.5.'10


Facts

:

By an application of 27.6.07 Ms. Mamta Mohapatra of Bhubaneswar
Orissa applied to the SP, CBI, AC Branch, Mumbai, seeking the following
information:

“Whether officers from C.B.I. from CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch,
Mumbai had searched residence of Manoj Kumar Sarangi, working
as Customs Appraiser at Air Cargo complex, Sahar Mumbai in the
month of December, 1998 in his residential house at Mulund, West,
Yogi Hill, Crown Jewel Apartment, if so who are the signatory in the
seizure list and the date of search.’

To this Ms. Mamta Mohapatra received a response datted1.8.07 from Shri
Parveen Salunke, SP, CBI, ACB, Mumbai informing her as follows:

“A search was conducted by officials of CBI, ACB, Mumbai on
12.12.98 at residential premises of Shri Manoj Kumar Sarangi at
Crown Jewel Apartment, Yogi Hill, Mulund West, Mumbai. The
information reg. Signatories in the Seizure List cannot be provided
as it is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.”

Aggrieved, Ms. Mohapatra moved her first appeal before DIG Police, Anti
Corruption Region, Colaba Mumbai on 9.8.07 pleading that she was not a third
party in this case, as follows:

“In this connection I beg to state that I am the wife of Manoj Kumar
Sarangi. I myself and my father Shri Prafulla Ch. Mohapatra were
present in the crown Jewel Apartment, Yogi Hill, Mulud West,
Mumbai on 10.12.1998 and also signed in the seizure list prepared
by CBI ACB, Mumbai on that date. So as section 8 (1) (j) of RTI
Act, 2005 I am not a stranger I myself and my father being
signatories is entitled to get this information. In this connection I

1
hereby declare that Mamata Mohapatra and Mamata Sarangi are
the name of one and same person.

That now one MAT case No. 1/07 is going on before District Judge,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa between myself and my husband Manoj
Kumar Sarangi in which this document has to be filed, which is
necessary and urgent. Though I know that I myself and my father
were present in that date but I have no documentary evidence to
provide that. Hence this please on the same date. My father who
is also a signatory in the seizure list has no objection, if this
document will be provided to me.’

In his order of 15.10.07 DIG ACR Mumbai informed appellant Ms. Mamta
Mohapatra as below:

“The signatories in the Seizure List are (1) Shri K. J. Kolaskar (2)
Shri G. P. Bendra (3) Shri S. P. Sandhor, PI, CBI, ACB, Mumbai
and it has been received by Shri P. C. Mohapatra.”

This has brought Ms. Mamta to her second appeal before us with the
following prayer:

“I pray that please accept my appeal and directed the authority
to provide me a clear document of my presence or absence
and also whether I am a signatory in the said document or not
which is urgently needed for just decision of my case.”

Appellant Ms. Mamta Mohapatra’s plea is based on the following grounds:
“Though CBI has accepted my appeal and provided me the
information regarding signatories in the seizure list, but tactfully
avoided to give my name in the information letter. If I was not
present on that date or I have not signed in the seizure list, I am not
entitled to get that information as per the provision under section 8
(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. So when 1st appellate authority has
accepted my application and gave information, so I am not a
stranger and the presence of my signature in the said document is
crystal clear. But the CBI has tactfully avoided this truth and gave
no information regarding my presence or signature, but the
signature of my father as receiver has been provided.”

The question before us, therefore, is clear: is Ms. Mamta Mohapatra’s
name on the impugned list?

2

The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 21.4.10 but the notice of hearing
not having been received by either party in time, the case was adjourned to the
present date. The appeal was then heard with arrangement for videoconference
both with Bhubaneswar and Mumbai. The following are present:

Respondents at NIC Studio, Mumbai
Mr. Praveen Salunke, DIG, CBI
Mr. K. Sudhakar, Dy. Legal Advisor

Since appellant was not present, when contacted on telephone, father of
appellant Ms. Mamta Mohapatra submitted that the information sought by his
daughter has been obtained by her from the CIC two months ago. She,
therefore, has no outstanding issues which would require her appearance.

Respondents had no comments to offer.

DECISION NOTICE

Since there is no live issue requiring a decision by this Commission in the
present case, the appeal is dismissed.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
28.5.2010

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
28.5.2010

3