Central Information Commission


Central Information Commission: In the second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘Act’) on the ground of unsatisfactory information furnished by the Chief Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) seeking direction to the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of RTI Act, Suresh Chandra, Chief Information Officer, directed the CPIO (respondent) to verify the status of the investigation and in case the same has been concluded, the information sought by the appellant may be disclosed after redacting the name of the third parties.

The Appellant sought the following information—

  • Certified copy of letter received from CBI, ACB, Pune for permission of competent authority of bank to give sanction for prosecution of Rajesh Jain i.e., the appellant, under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in case of FIR no. 13/2016 filed by bank against Mrs. Sushil Jainarayan Karwa & others.

  • Certified copy of the documents provided with covering letter to justify permission for prosecution from the bank.

  • Certified copy of the draft letter for sanction of competent authority.

  • Certified copy of the office note put up before the competent authority.

  • Certified copy of the movement of process noting on the RTI application.

OOn the grounds of non-receipt of information sought by the appellant, a second appeal was filed against the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) denying the information.

The CPIO denied the information stating that it will impede the process of investigation and therefore it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, and the information sought being confidential in nature isexempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The respondent submitted that they were unaware of the status of the investigation and need confirmation of the same.

The Commission observed that the exemption sought by the respondent is not applicable as the investigation into the matter has been completed.

The Commission disposed of the appeal and directed the respondent to make the information available to the appellant after redacting the third-party names

[Rajesh Manikchand Jain v. CPIO: Bank of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine CIC 510, decided on 01-11-2022]

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.