Full Judgment Text
28.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5646/2008
th
Date of decision: 10 November, 2009
ANITA J. GURSAHANI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Girija Krishan Varma, Advocate.
versus
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. S.K. Dubey, Advocate for respondent
No.4.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Yadav & Mr. Prashant Neal,
Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
O R D E R
1. The petitioners herein have been convicted under Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and their appeal against conviction is pending before the Bombay High
Court.
2. The petitioners herein had also filed an application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 seeking the following information:-
“In view of the reasons mentioned at para (3)(i)(a-d)
hereinabove, the applicants want the inspection, records,
documents, notings, extracts & photocopies u/s 2(f) (i) &
(j) of the Act for the information sought & inter connected
documents/issues below i.e.
a) Letter dt. 20.04.1994 of CBI-ACB, Bombay, bearing
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 1
Ref.no.3/58(A)/91/AC-Bom,. Addressed to Mr. D.G.
Jugran (IPS), Div. Vig. Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Bombay-21, a copy endorsed to CMD, CCI, Air-India
Building, Nariman Point Bombay.
b) Letter dt. 05.10.1995 bearing Ref. No.3/58(A)/91 Bombay
addressed by SP-CBI/ACB, Bombay to CMD, CCI Ltd, Air
India Bldg., Nariman Point, Bom.
c) Letter dt. 04.01.1995 bearing Ref. No. 3/58(A)/91/Bom/C-
17 addressed by SP-CBI/ACB, Bombay to CMD, CCI Ltd,
Bombay.
d) Letter dt. 25.01.1996 bearing Ref. No. CCI/VIG/RECT/684
Vol.II/95-96/941/12609 addressed to SP-CBI/ACB, Tanna
House, N.P. Road, Bombay-39 issued by Mr. R.K. Kedia,
the then G.M., CCI, Bombay, in response to above three
letters of SP-CBI/ACB, Bom.”
3. The said application was filed before the CPIO of the Cotton Corporation
of India Limited, the employer of petitioner No. 1. The information was denied
and the two petitioners filed second appeal before the Central Information
th
Commission. The appeal was disposed of vide order dated 26 September, 2007
observing that the CPIO had already furnished one of the four documents which
had originated from his office, but with regard to other documents which have
originated from Central Bureau of Investigation the procedure prescribed under
Section 11(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 should be followed. The
Central information Commission observed and directed:-
“7. The CPIO of the CBI is directed to examine
the request of the appellants for disclosure of
information asked for, as there is no on-going
investigation in the matter. The claim of exemption
u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act, may not be justified, as the
matter has already been disposed of by the Court.
8. The appellants are free to approach the
Commission again if they are not satisfied with the
compliance of the above decision by the CPIOs of
the CBI and the respondent.”
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 2
4. It was held that the Central Bureau of Investigation is a public authority.
Liberty was granted to the petitioners herein to approach the Commission again if
they are not satisfied with the decision of CPIO of the CBI and the respondent.
5. The petitioner was not satisfied with the steps taken by the CPIO and then
th
filed another petition dated 5 October, 2007 before the Central Information
Commission. CBI filed response to the said application placing reliance under
Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and informed
the petitioners that the information cannot be furnished in view of the said
exemption clauses.
st
6. The Central Information Commission by the impugned order dated 1
April, 2008 records that the CPIO of Cotton Corporation of India Limited had
stated that the information asked for and not furnished relates to CBI and cannot
be furnished because CBI has not given concurrence for disclosure of the said
information. The Central Information Commission thereafter passed the
following order:-
“ Decision:
5. The information sought for relate to the
CBI’s investigation. The CBI is a public authority.
The appellant is advised to directly approach the
CBI for disclosure of information which is due to
the CBI. The appellant is advised accordingly and
the appeal is thus disposed of.”
7. As noticed above, the CBI has already contended that the information
sought for by the petitioners cannot be provided as it falls under Sections 8(1)(h)
and 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Central Information Commission was required to
consider and examine the stand of the CBI whether or not the said exemption
provisions apply to the facts of the present case. The impugned order passed by
st
the Central Information Commission dated 1 April, 2008 does not deal with the
said contentions. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the Central
Information Commission to adjudicate and decide the stand of the CBI that the
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 3
information sought for cannot be furnished and supplied in view of Sections
8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the Act.
8. The parties will appear before the Registrar, Central information
st
Commission on 1 December, 2009, when further date for hearing will be fixed.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion whether or not
information can be furnished under the Act and the contentions of the parties.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5646/2008
th
Date of decision: 10 November, 2009
ANITA J. GURSAHANI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Ms. Girija Krishan Varma, Advocate.
versus
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. S.K. Dubey, Advocate for respondent
No.4.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Yadav & Mr. Prashant Neal,
Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
O R D E R
1. The petitioners herein have been convicted under Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and their appeal against conviction is pending before the Bombay High
Court.
2. The petitioners herein had also filed an application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 seeking the following information:-
“In view of the reasons mentioned at para (3)(i)(a-d)
hereinabove, the applicants want the inspection, records,
documents, notings, extracts & photocopies u/s 2(f) (i) &
(j) of the Act for the information sought & inter connected
documents/issues below i.e.
a) Letter dt. 20.04.1994 of CBI-ACB, Bombay, bearing
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 1
Ref.no.3/58(A)/91/AC-Bom,. Addressed to Mr. D.G.
Jugran (IPS), Div. Vig. Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Bombay-21, a copy endorsed to CMD, CCI, Air-India
Building, Nariman Point Bombay.
b) Letter dt. 05.10.1995 bearing Ref. No.3/58(A)/91 Bombay
addressed by SP-CBI/ACB, Bombay to CMD, CCI Ltd, Air
India Bldg., Nariman Point, Bom.
c) Letter dt. 04.01.1995 bearing Ref. No. 3/58(A)/91/Bom/C-
17 addressed by SP-CBI/ACB, Bombay to CMD, CCI Ltd,
Bombay.
d) Letter dt. 25.01.1996 bearing Ref. No. CCI/VIG/RECT/684
Vol.II/95-96/941/12609 addressed to SP-CBI/ACB, Tanna
House, N.P. Road, Bombay-39 issued by Mr. R.K. Kedia,
the then G.M., CCI, Bombay, in response to above three
letters of SP-CBI/ACB, Bom.”
3. The said application was filed before the CPIO of the Cotton Corporation
of India Limited, the employer of petitioner No. 1. The information was denied
and the two petitioners filed second appeal before the Central Information
th
Commission. The appeal was disposed of vide order dated 26 September, 2007
observing that the CPIO had already furnished one of the four documents which
had originated from his office, but with regard to other documents which have
originated from Central Bureau of Investigation the procedure prescribed under
Section 11(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 should be followed. The
Central information Commission observed and directed:-
“7. The CPIO of the CBI is directed to examine
the request of the appellants for disclosure of
information asked for, as there is no on-going
investigation in the matter. The claim of exemption
u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act, may not be justified, as the
matter has already been disposed of by the Court.
8. The appellants are free to approach the
Commission again if they are not satisfied with the
compliance of the above decision by the CPIOs of
the CBI and the respondent.”
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 2
4. It was held that the Central Bureau of Investigation is a public authority.
Liberty was granted to the petitioners herein to approach the Commission again if
they are not satisfied with the decision of CPIO of the CBI and the respondent.
5. The petitioner was not satisfied with the steps taken by the CPIO and then
th
filed another petition dated 5 October, 2007 before the Central Information
Commission. CBI filed response to the said application placing reliance under
Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and informed
the petitioners that the information cannot be furnished in view of the said
exemption clauses.
st
6. The Central Information Commission by the impugned order dated 1
April, 2008 records that the CPIO of Cotton Corporation of India Limited had
stated that the information asked for and not furnished relates to CBI and cannot
be furnished because CBI has not given concurrence for disclosure of the said
information. The Central Information Commission thereafter passed the
following order:-
“ Decision:
5. The information sought for relate to the
CBI’s investigation. The CBI is a public authority.
The appellant is advised to directly approach the
CBI for disclosure of information which is due to
the CBI. The appellant is advised accordingly and
the appeal is thus disposed of.”
7. As noticed above, the CBI has already contended that the information
sought for by the petitioners cannot be provided as it falls under Sections 8(1)(h)
and 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Central Information Commission was required to
consider and examine the stand of the CBI whether or not the said exemption
provisions apply to the facts of the present case. The impugned order passed by
st
the Central Information Commission dated 1 April, 2008 does not deal with the
said contentions. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the Central
Information Commission to adjudicate and decide the stand of the CBI that the
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 3
information sought for cannot be furnished and supplied in view of Sections
8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the Act.
8. The parties will appear before the Registrar, Central information
st
Commission on 1 December, 2009, when further date for hearing will be fixed.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion whether or not
information can be furnished under the Act and the contentions of the parties.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 5646/2008 Page 4