IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that information exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which would impede an ongoing investigation, cannot be provided.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejecting an appeal filed by the Petitioner which ultimately upheld the order passed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts of the present case reveal that the Petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Audit & Accounts Service.

3. Material on record indicates that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was investigating a case relating to irregularities in the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) where the Petitioner was working as Deputy Secretary/Director on deputation with the Department of Consumer Affairs.

4. It is stated that the Petitioner was examined by the CBI and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Material on record also reveals that the CBI recommended action against few officers in its report in July, 2015.

5. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 04.04.2016 was issued against the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner acted in a perfunctory manner by facilitating the appointment of Forward Markets Commission (FMC) as a designated agency to oversee the functioning of the commodity spot exchanges.

6. The SCN also indicates that the action of the Petitioner amounted to showing undue favour to the NSEL by concealing the fact from the RBI that the NSEL had falsely claimed before the RBI that it was under regulatory control and the Petitioner was submitting monthly reports to ensure that the NSEL remained out of the purview of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.

7. The SCN further indicates that the Petitioner had shown undue favour to the NSEL by participating in the act of relaxing and diluting of the draft forwarded by FMC for appointment as designated agency for regulating spot exchanges and the action of the Petitioner had resulted in the FMC being appointed despite not being sufficiently empowered to take effective action against spot exchange. There are also other allegations with regard to the functioning of the NSEL.

8. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking the following information:

"(i) Copy of the CBI's above cited report along with the copies of the Notings recorded at various levels in DEA in connection with the processing of the CBI's report;

(ii) Copy of the Action Taken Report (ATR) thereon, if any;

(iii) Copy of the comments of CVC on ATR of DEA, if any;

(iv) Copy of the comments of CBI thereon, if any;

(v) Copies of the Notes and correspondence relating to items (ii) to (iv) above; and

(vi) Copy of the final orders passed by the Hon'ble Minister/MOS of Finance on the action proposed by CBI against the officers of erstwhile Forward Markets Commission (FMC), Mumbai."

9. The information sought by the Petitioner was denied on 03.06.2016 by the CPIO on the ground that the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by the said denial of information, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was rejected by an Order dated 01.07.2016 wherein the First Appellate Authority also reiterated that the information sought for by the Petitioner is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

10. The Petitioner thereafter approached the CIC by filing an appeal against the Order dated 01.07.2016 which was rejected by the CIC vide Order dated 11.11.2016 holding that the information sought by the Petitioner herein could not be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It was further held that as the CBI was an organisation exempted from the operation of the RTI Act under Section 24, therefore, information sought for by the Petitioner could not be provided. It is this Order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

11. It is contention of learned Counsel for the Petiti