9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 10885 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2010 - S. Muralidhar, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.K. Dubey, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Kannan Kapur, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Shiv Shambhu - 2008 IX AD (Del) 289 the name of Respondent No. 1 is struck off from the array of parties. The cause title will now read as "Union of India v. D.N. Kar." 2. The present petition by the Union of India is directed against an order dated 3rd April 2008 passed by the Central Information Commission ('CIC') allowing the Respondent's appeal and directing the Petitioner to furnish to the Respondent relevant documents pertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation : "File pertaining to the preparation of "Agreed List" for the year 2004 containing the recommendations of higher authorities seeking inclusion/deletion of names and the final recommendation of the office of the CCIT on the above matter." 5. The CPIO by an order dated 16th January 2007 rejected the above request made by the Petitioner by referring to the CIC's decision dated 1st May 2006 in Appeal No. 31/IC(A)/6, upholding in that case, the decision of the CPIO not to disclose the information by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It was held that "the information by such superior authorities is given in confidence and is held in fiduciary capacity, the permission to inspect the file with regard to suggestions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant. To an extent, integrity of an official is indeed questioned or suspected. Such a list is maintained for only one year. The list of 2004, in which the appellant's name was included, has already served the mandatory purpose, mainly to establish the fact about the integrity of the allegedly corrupt official. There is thus a strong jurisdiction for indicating the grounds for recommending the name of the appellant for inclusion in the Agreed List, as he is an affected person u/s 4(1) of the Act. 5. In view of this, the CPIO is directed to furnish the relevant documents pertaining to the inclusion of the appellant's name in the Agreed List, after due application of Section 10(1) of the Act. The CPIO is free to withhold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information concerning the Respondent even to the Respondent. It was submitted that if the Respondent was told that he was included in the "Agreed List" then the very purpose of keeping him under surveillance by including his name in such list would be defeated. It was also submitted that the information about the Respondent may have been received from other persons, some of whom may have given it to the Department in a fiduciary capacity. It would not be in public interest therefore to disclose the information sought for to the Petitioner. 11. In the considered view of this court, the above submissions are misconceived. The Respondent is seeking information only about himself being included in the Agreed List. There is no question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
