Respondents : Shipping Corporation of India Limited ORDER. This appeal earlier came up for hearing on when the Commission

Transcription

1 Central Information Commission Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Web: Tel No: Case No. November 12, 2013 Appellant : Shri Raja Basu Respondents : Shipping Corporation of India Limited Date of Hearing : ORDER This appeal earlier came up for hearing on when the Commission issued an interim order dated , which is reproduced below: 1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated wherein he sought the copy of report submitted by Dr. Gulshan Rai to CVO, Shipping Corporation of India and copy of reply given by ED (IT) under reference no. IT/ED(IT)/F-VIG/011SN040 dated The CPIO vide letter dated furnished the following reply to the appellant: In regard to Query No. 1 & 2, it is to state that, the information sought for is forwarded by the CVC to the CVO; therefore we have requested the Central Vigilance Commission for no objection for sharing the information under the RTI Act, This information would be provided upon getting no objection from the Commission. Page 1 of 5

2 2 3. The first appellate authority in his order dated recorded that no reply was received from CVC and directed the CPIO to provide the information sought to the appellant within (10) days after payment of requisite fees. 4. Thereafter the CPIO vide letter dated informed the appellant that a reply from CVC has now been received and hence the first appellate authority did not have an occasion to deal with this issue. The CPIO held as under: Based on above, we state that since new facts have come in to the picture i.e, the Central Vigilance Commission s letter dated which states that- it is intimated that the matter has not yet been finalized, therefore, the Commission would deny its consent for sharing of the report of Dr. Gulshan Rai, DG, Department of IT with the RTI applicant under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. We also consider that the information sought from IT Division is inextricably linked with the report of Dr. Gulshan Rai. In view of the above, we can not disclose this information to you, however, you may prefer an appeal with an appropriate authority of RTI. 5. On hearing the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observes that there has been a considerable delay in reply forwarded by the CVC under section (11) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission is of the view that it will be necessary to hear CPIO, CVC to pass an order with this regard. The CPIO, CVC and CPIO, SCI shall be present on the next date of hearing along with the relevant documents and submissions with regards to the information sought in the present RTI application. 2. The matter was then finally heard on in the presence of Shri D. Haldar, ED & CPIO, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai (Respondents); Shri Surendra Mohan, Director, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC); and the Appellant, Shri Raja Basu. 3. During the hearing, the Respondents states that the information in question here i.e. report of Dr. Gulshan Rai, DG, Department of IT submitted to CVO, Shipping Corporation of India Limited is held by the CVC. Shri Surendra Mohan, Director representing CVC while admitting the fact that the original report (mentioned 2

3 hereinabove) is with the CVC, informs the Commission that the matter related to said report has not yet attained the finality and that it is still under enquiry/investigation at the level of the CVC. He, therefore, urges not to allow the disclosure of information to the Appellant at this stage as it would impede the process of enquiry/investigation being conducted by the CVC at present. He cites exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 4. The Appellant, on the other hand, argues that the information sought by him has already been allowed to be disclosed by the Appellate Authority and that therefore the same cannot be denied to him. 5. Having heard the submissions and perused the records, the Commission notes that the CPIO had erred in invoking section 11(1) of the RTI Act in the present matter. Since the information in question was admittedly held by another public authority i.e. CVC, the CPIO should have transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, CVC u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act instead of making reference u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, CVC. The CPIO, CVC should have also responded to the notice issued (u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act) to him by the Respondent CPIO within the stipulated time period. Nonetheless, the fact which cannot be denied here is that the information sought by the Appellant here is held by the CVC and that the matter related to it is presently under enquiry/investigation by CVC. Since the information sought by the Appellant (as informed by Sh. Surendra Mohan, Director, CVC during hearing) is the very basis of enquiry/investigation being conducted by the CVC presently, its disclosure would impede the process of enquiry/investigation as mentioned in section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 6. In view of the above, the Commission is not in a position to allow the disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant to him at this stage u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Page 3 of 5

4 4 7. Appeal is accordingly rejected. (Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 4

5 Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Address to the parties: 1. Shri Raja Basu Shipping Corporation of India Marine Training Institute 52- C, Adi Sankaracharya Marg, Powai Mumbai Public Information Officer (RTI) The Shipping Corporation of India Shipping House, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai Public Information Officer (RTI), Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkata Bhawan, Block A, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi Page 5 of 5