Dear Mr. Marathe : Good work. Please keep us informed of the further steps CIC takes with CBI HQ.
Regards Milind Kotak On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:08 PM, ajay marathe <[email protected]>wrote: > CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONCENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION > > *CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION * > > Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00438 dated 11.2.2008 > > *Right to Information Act 2005 Section 19 * > > *Appellant *- Shri Ajay M. Marathe > > *Respondent *- Central Bureau of Investigation > > *Decision announced : 26.8.2009 * > > *Facts*: > > By an application of 6.9.07 Shri A. M. Marathe of Vashi, Navi Mumbai (Mah) > applied to the CBI, AC Branch, Colaba, Mumbai seeking the following > information : > > 1. List of complaints received by CBI (ACB) alongwith name of complainant/ > complaint/ the person complained against. > > 2. Action for steps taken, if any, on these complaints. > > To this Shri A. M. Marathe received a response from Shri Praveen Salunke, > SP > CBI ACB Mumbai dated 9.10.07 as follows: > > In this connection, you are hereby informed that the said information can > not be parted with you as it is exempted under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI > Act, 2005. > > Upon this Shri Marathe moved an appeal before Shri Rahul Sharma, DIG > (Police), CBI, ACB Mumbai, arguing as below: > > If public comes to know that based on complaints lodged ACB, CBI does > swift > through investigation and if found guilty, the concerned Govt. official is > penalized, more & more public (citizen) will come forward to complain > against erring corrupt Govt. officials. > > Shri A. M. Marathes prayer before Appellate Authority, therefore, was as > follows: > > An ordinary citizen, I am sure as I have said above, has a right to know > how well ACB, CBI is doing its job and getting the above mentioned > information (may be without the names of the complainant) as part of it. > > Upon this Sh. Rahul Sharma, after detailed examination, has in his order of > 2.11.07 directed as follows: > > considering the facts mentioned herein above, the exemption has been > correctly applied by CPIO, ACB, Mumbai under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI > Act, 2005 that reads as information, the disclosure of which would > endanger > the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of > information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or > security purposes. > > This has brought the redoubtable Sh. A. M. Marathe before us in second > appeal with the following plea: > > 1. Information asked may please be provided (without the name of > complainant). > > > > 2. Appellate Authority has not conducted hearing, as per section 19 (5) in > ay appeal proceedings appellate authority may please be cushioned for not > giving me an opportunity to put forward my arguments in a hearing. > > > > 3. Appellate Authority has not issued a speaking order he has not dealt > with > my arguments which were based on sections of RTI Act, point by point. He > may > please be cautioned for the same. > > > > 4. Suitable penalty may please be imposed on CPIO. > > > > 5. I may please be compensated (taken amount of Rs. 100 will do) for the > trouble of going through the 1st/ 2nd appeal procedure. > > > > The appeal was heard on 26.8.09. The following are present at NIC Studio, > Mumbai: > > *Appellant * > > Shri A. M. Marathe > > *Respondents * > > Shri Praveen Salunke, SP, CBI > > Shri Faiz Ansari, Sr. Prosecutor > > Shri Ansar Ali Ansari > > Appellant Shri Marathe submitted that his purpose in seeking the > information > is to satisfy himself that the complaints received by CBI are all attended > to. This he contended was the right of every citizen. Shri Praveen Salunke > on the other hand submitted that the CBI receives complaints all over the > country. These are all scrutinized and then placed before the competent > > > > authority designated under the CBI Manual for a decision on further action. > Besides, even if the identities of complainants are not disclosed, the > person accused is also compromised by such disclosure of information. > Therefore, such information is not provided. On the other hand, the CBI > website provides detailed information on cases registered, those prosecuted > and the results thereof. > > *DECISION NOTICE * > > Having heard the arguments and examined records of this file, we find that > much of what appellant has sought is already on the CBIs website. He, > however, wishes to take a step further to satisfy himself that although the > CPIO has assured him that all complaints are scrutinized, that this is > indeed happening. This would require information to be available in the > public domain on receipt and disposal of complaints across the country. > This, however, is not an issue which can be resolved at the level of SP of > a > Branch of the CBI. > > Sec. 4(1)(b) demands that every public authority is expected to publish > within 120 days from the enactment of the RTI Act, and thereafter update > the > publication every year, of among others aub-section (i) *the particulars > of > its organization, functions and duties*. Among the principal duties of the > CBI is to receive complaints, scrutinize them and investigate them, if > necessary. Thus the particulars of these duties are expected also to be > published on the website of the CBI. Clearly initiating such a process is > beyond the competence of a Branch Office of the CBI. For this reason the > matter will be further discussed by this Information Commission with the > CBI, HQ to see how a more satisfactory arrangement for keeping the public > informed regarding these vital areas of operations is developed by the CBI. > The appeal is disposed of accordingly, with a word of commendation to > appellant Shri A. M. Marathe for the expression of his public spirit in > seeking to promote transparency and accountability in governance. > > > > Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to > the parties. > > (Wajahat Habibullah) > > Chief Information Commissioner > > 26.8.2009 > > Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied > against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, > to > the CPIO of this Commission. > > (Pankaj Shreyaskar) > > Joint Registrar > > 26.8.2009 > > > -- > Thanks & Rgds > > Ajay Marathe > > Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
