CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00916 dated 23-8-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singh
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
FACTS
By an application of 12-1-07 Shri Rajendra Singh, Public Prosecutor,
CBI, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi applied to the CPIO & SP, Hqrs. CBI seeking
copies of documents as follows:
“4. Number of cases which resulted in the discharge or
acquittal of the accused and in these cases, the Ld.
Judges/ magistrates passed strictures against the
investigating officers/ prosecutors and the CBI neither
has filed appeals/ revisions against the Judgements/
Orders nor filed appeals/ revisions to expunge the
strictures nor responsibility was fixed against the erring
officers.
5. Details/ File Notings/ steps/ Initiatives, taken from
17.10.2006 till date by the Director, CBI, New Delhi for
extending special incentive allowance to the ministerial/
prosecutor and technical staff, posted in CBI.
6. Copy of recommendation letter of Shri K. L. Bishnoi, DIG/
SCB, Mumbai about my having completed the probation
period of two years satisfactorily.
7. Copy of report about my having completed the probation
period of two years satisfactorily forwarded to UPSC,
New Delhi in July 2001.
8. Copy of letter for having declared fit for having completed
my probation period of two years satisfactorily.
9. Copy of Petition dated 8.9.2003 submitted to the court in
RC 5(A)/ 2001 (D) by the accused Praveen Kumar Mishra
challenging the authority of the conducting public
prosecutor to conduct the trial.
10. Copy of time petition dated 20.11.2003 submitted to the
court by me in RC 5(A)/2001(D).
11. Copy of Benevolent Fund file including File notings,
maintained in the office of the SP/CBI/ACB, Dhanbad.
1
12. Copy of complaint dated 26.9.2006 with injury report
lodged against Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar Inspector, CBI/
ACB, DHN by Shri Dharma Nand Thakur, LDC/CBI/ACB,
DHN and copy of extracts of relevant portion of file
notings wherein said complaint dealt with.
13. Copy of station diary dated 25.9.2006 maintained in the
O/o the SP/CBI/ACB Dhanbad.
14. Copy of FIR in RC 6(A)/2003 (D).
15. Copy of Court Diary No. 47, RC 8(A)/95(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.06, RC 11 (A)/94 (Pat).
Copy of Court Diary No. 25, RC 5(A)/96(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.18, RC10 (A)/2000 (D).
Copy of Court Diary No.39, RC 21 (A)/94 (D).
Copy of Court Diary No.73, RC 3(A)/ 92 (D).
Copy of Court Diary No.10, RC 8(A). 2002/(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.22, RC 14 (A)/99(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.19, RC 8 (A)/97 (D).
Copy of Court Diary No.56, RC 10 (A)/98 (D).
Copy of Court Diary No.28, RC 21 (A)/95 (D).
Copy of Court Diary dated 5.8.2003, RC 18(A)/86(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.57, RC 10 (A)/98/(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.13, RC 15(A)/2001(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.73, RC 1(A)/94(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.8, RC 4(A)/02(D).
Copy of Court Diary No.37, RC 5(D)/95 (D).
16. Copy of inquiry report, conducted by Shri A. K. Singh,
DIG/CBI/ACB/RO, Ranchi in the matter of fabrication of
official record in RC 6(A)/2003 (D).
17. Copy of the then Naib Court Shri Judaki Rajak’s Court
cases diary dated 12.5.2003, 13.5.2003 and 8.8.2003
maintained by him to keep track records of court cases
pending in the court of the then special Judge-cum-1st
ADJ, Dhanbad.
18. Copy of the extracts of relevant portion of file notings,
wherein my complaint dated 27.6.2003 and 2.7.2003
regarding fabricating of the official records in case RC
6(A)/2003 (D) were dealt with.
19. Period for which information asked for: last 20 years.”
To this he received a response from Shri R.L. Azad, SP, CBI, SPG,
Dhanbad dated 7-2-07 on question Nos. 9 to 18 of the application of 20-11-06,
2
in which disclosure of information was refused on all points either on grounds
that the information “cannot be supplied” or that “the record is not in the office”,
or from exemption claimed u/s 8 (1) (h).
Appellant Shri Rajendra Singh then moved his first appeal before the
DIG, CBI/ RO, Ranchi received by the latter on 18.3.2007, upon which by an
order dated 8.4.2007 DIG Shri AK Singh directed disclosure of information on
seven of the points upholding the CPIO’s decision to refuse only with regard
to three points. However, appellant Shri Rajendra Singh wrote to DIG, Shri A.
K. Singh on 3.5.07 that despite these orders the DIG’s orders dated 8.4.2007
have not been complied with. Thereafter he has moved a second appeal
before us with the following prayer: –
“10.1 That Shri R. N. Azad, CPIO/SP/CBI/ACB, Dhanbad be
directed to furnish the information and copies thereof.
10.2 Any other order(s) deemed fit and proper, may be
passed.”
In this ground of appeal, however, Shri Rajendra Singh has nowhere
made reference to the order of 8.4.2007 of the first Appellate Authority or the
situation with regard to compliance or non-compliance of the latter’s orders.
The appeal was heard through Videoconference on 27-11-08.
Following are present.
Appellant (at CIC Studio, New Delhi)
Shri Rajendra Singh
Respondents
Shri A. K. Singh, DIG, CBI (at NIC Studio, Ranchi)
Shri V. P. Arya, SP, CBI, ACB, (at NIC Studio, Dhanbad)
DECISION NOTICE
In response to a question by the Commissioner, appellant Shri
Rajendra Singh submitted that there has been part compliance with the orders
of First Appellate Authority. He submitted the following statement.
Queries CPIO order FAA order dated Reply of CPIO
dated 7.2.07 8.4.2007 dated 25.6.2007
to the decision
of FAA dated
8.4.2007
3
Q. No. 9 Refused CPIO was The CPIO has
directed to not complied
provide the with.
information.
Q. No. Refused CPIO was The CPIO has
10 directed to not complied
provide the with.
information.
Q. No. Refused The CPIO was The CPIO
11 directed to allowed to
supply/ or inspect.
permitted to
inspection.
Q. No.12 Refused The CPIO is Claimed
justified to claim exemption.
exemption u/s 8
(1) (h).
Q. No.13 Refused The CPIO is Claimed
justified to claim exemption.
exemptions u/s 8
(1) (h).
Q. No.14 Refused CPIO was The CPIO has
directed to supply complied with the
the information. direction.
Q. No.15 Refused/ CPIO is justified Claimed
Claimed to claim exemption.
exemption exemption.
Q. No.16 Refused on the The CPIO should It was transferred
grounds that it is have transferred to the office of
not the record of it to the FAA.
his office. concerned CPIO.
Q. No.17 Refused on the Agreed with the Not available at
ground that Shri CPIO. this stage.
Judaki Rajak
does not have
any dairy for the
year 2003.
Q. No.18 Refused The CPIO Was CPIO has
directed to supply furnished false
the information. information.
As can be seen in the above statement the CPIO is stated to have
complied with directions with regard to question nos. 11,14 and 16. On the
remaining two issues Nos. 9 and 10 the orders are claimed not to have been
complied with and in response to question no. 18 the allegation of appellant is
that the information supplied is false. But upon receiving this information he
has made no appeal on this account to the first appellate authority.
4
st
Because the 1 appellate authority has not addressed the questions of
appellant, which are of direct concern to his public authority and because
appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or
apprehension of malafide on the part of the Department, the Commission has
st
decided to remand this appeal to Shri A.K. Singh, DIG, CBI/RO, 1
appellate authority, at 2 Booty Road, Ranchi-834 008 who is directed to
dispose of the appeal, together with action on non-compliance with his
orders, if any found by him, within 15 working days from the date of
receipt of this decision, under intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar,
Central Information Commission. If not satisfied with the information so
nd
provided, appellant Shri Rajendra Singh will be free to move a fresh 2
appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3). This Appeal now stands disposed of
accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
27-11-2008
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
27-11-2008
5