2013 (9) TMI 852 - CGOVT - Indian Laws

Right to information - Partial information provided - Exemption u/s 8(1)(h) - Held that - After the personal hearing and perusal of records, the First Appellate Authority noted that the Complainant himself is the Applicant in the above matter and he is seeking course of action taken on his own complaint. Hence, the First Appellate Authority decided that providing the information and permitting him to inspect the concerned file will not hamper the ongoing investigation. Therefore, the First Appellate Authority instructed the CPIO to permit the Appellant to inspect the records - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Request for information under RTI Act - Denial of access to certain documents - Appeal against CPIO's decision - Applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act - Right to information vs. Investigation process.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Request for information under RTI Act
The case involves an application filed by Shri R.K. Jain under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking specific information/documents from the CPIO, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. The information requested included details such as the date and receipt number of a letter, file number, action taken on the letter, copies of note-sheets, and inspection of relevant records.

Issue 2: Denial of access to certain documents
The CPIO & Under Secretary denied access to copies of note-sheets, correspondence pages, and inspection of records, citing exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The reason provided was that the investigation on Shri Jain's letter was still ongoing, and disclosing the requested information could impede the investigation process.

Issue 3: Appeal against CPIO's decision
Aggrieved by the CPIO's decision, Shri Jain filed an appeal before the Director (Headquarters) and First Appellate Authority. He sought a personal hearing and the opportunity to peruse the original records mentioned in his RTI application.

Issue 4: Applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act
During the appeal process, Shri Jain highlighted judgments from the Hon'ble High Court, emphasizing that the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) should only apply if disclosing the information would impede the investigation or prosecution. Mere existence of an investigation process should not be a ground for refusal, and the authority must provide satisfactory reasons for withholding information that could hamper the investigation.

Issue 5: Right to information vs. Investigation process
After a personal hearing and review of records, the First Appellate Authority noted that since Shri Jain was the applicant seeking information on his own complaint, providing access to the information and allowing inspection of the file would not hinder the ongoing investigation. Therefore, the First Appellate Authority instructed the CPIO to permit Shri Jain to inspect the records, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.