The burden is on the public authority to show how disclosure of information could impede the investigation or prosecution under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ, order or direction to impugn the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

2. The case of the petitioner is that he filed an RTI Application on 05.09.2016 under Rule 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTI Act’) seeking disclosure of point wise information which was mentioned at serial No. 5(i) to 5(xxv) of the said application. It is claimed that the CPIO did not provide correct information in respect of point 5(i) of the RTI application. The CPIO hid the cases registered under IPC/PC Act. It is also claimed that the CPIO misled regarding the other issues. Information was not disclosed under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.

3. The petitioner filed a first appeal on 10.10.2016 before the First Appellate Authority. It is stated that the Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal of the petitioner in the defined period. The petitioner filed a second appeal before the Second Appellate Authority CIC. It is the grievance of the petitioner that during the hearing, the respondent believed the verbal submissions of the CPIO instead of the written submissions of the petitioner and allowed them to sustain their stand for non-disclosure of the information in respect of all the points by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondent. Both the parties have also filed their written submissions which I have perused.

5. At the outset, I may point out that a close look at the writ petition shows that there is suppression of material and vital facts by the petitioner in the present writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.01.2018 of the CIC shows that there are serious and grave allegations and proceedings including criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner. None of this has been mentioned in the present writ petition.

6. As per the impugned order, a case was registered against the petitioner by CBI, New Delhi on 05.05.2012 on the allegation of criminal conspiracy of cheating by impersonation, demand of illegal gratification and misuse of official position. The petitioner was taken into custody by CBI and was remanded to judicial custody by the CBI Special Court on 25.05.2012. The petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 23.08.2012 by the ACMM, Patiala House Court on a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner was under suspension w.e.f. 24.05.2012 under the relevant provisions of CCS Rules, 1965. A charge sheet was filed by CBI against the petitioner after due investigation. The concerned court is said to have taken cognizance of the offence on 16.08.2012. Further, the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension suo moto by the Department. The suspension was subsequently revoked on 10.03.2015 on the recommendations of the Suspension Review Committee. Further, as recommended by the Investigating Agency and DG (Vigilance), a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 13.08.2013 for major penalty under CCS (CCA) Act, 1956. The impugned order notes that the Departmental and CBI inquiry has not attained finality.

7. None of the above aspects has been mentioned in the present writ petition. These facts give the full background of the case and the RTI application filed. This suppression of facts itself, in my opinion, is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition. In this context reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prestige Lights Limited vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 where the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226