Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (12) TMI 1231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on sought is not personal information but it pertains to individual CBI officers in respect of their public duty and therefore, the Central Bureau of Investigation has been directed to supply such information. The reluctance of the CBI to supply the requisite information is palpable. The exemption claimed under Section 8 is unjustified and has no bearing on the information required. As a last attempt to avoid furnishing the information it was argued that the CBI does not fall within the clutches of the RTI Act in view of the notification issued on 9-6-2011 amending the second schedule to the Act. This submission is without merit. The application was filed under the RTI Act before the amendment and therefore, it would not be governed by i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he period of 1st April, 2008 to 30 April, 2008. (f) Photocopy of details of expenditure incurred on the hiring of vehicle by CBI officers of ACB, Kolkata in connection with the investigation at Port Blair during period 1st April, 2008 to 30 June, 2008 along with the photocopies of the bills claimed. (g) Photocopy of details of rewards given to the CBI officers of ACB, Kolkata for carrying out successful traps indicating the name and designation of the Officer and the amount of reward for the period of 1st April, 2008 to 30 June, 2008. (h) Photocopy of details of CBI officers whose name was placed in the list of doubtful integrity during period of Jan 2006 to till date. (i) Photocopy of details of CBI officers ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h) of the RTI Act. He urged that the disclosure of any personal information which has no relationship to any public activity, would invade the privacy of an individual and therefore, the Central Public Information Officer had rightly desisted from providing such information. 7. The learned counsel submitted further that the Joint Director who was the First Appellate Authority had confirmed the order of the Central Public Information Officer. According to him, the order of the CIC does not take into account the fact that the respondent No. 2 has shown no reason for demanding the information. The learned counsel submitted that when such reason is not disclosed or is not germane such information is not required to be supplied to the applica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... carved out under Section 8 of the RTI Act. 10. The query (b) with regard to the visitors register is with respect to certain dates. It has been argued by Mr. Das that informants could also have met the SP and their names would be in the register. The information sought is not with respect to the reason why a person had visited the SP but only the names. Providing such information would not throw any light on whether a person who visits the SP is an informant. It would not put the person s life or his physical safety in danger. 11. As regards point (h) in respect of the CBI officers whose names are placed in the list of doubtful integrity, in my view it would not be appropriate to supply this information. This is because unless there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Section 6(2) of the RTI Act clearly provides that the applicant making a request for information is not required to give any reason for seeking the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Therefore, this argument of Mr. Das is untenable. 15. Mr. Tabraiz, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has brought to my notice the decisions in Treesa Irish v. Central Public Information Officer, reported in LAWS (Ker) 2010-8-381 = 2012 (275) E.L.T. 410 (Ker.), and Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner reported in LAWS (DLH)-2007-12-83 = 2013 (295) E.L.T. 503 (Del.). He has also relied on a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Special Appeal No. 18 of 2011 decided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates