के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/637290 Siddhartha Mukherjee … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Certified copy of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate issued to Shri Kasargod Suresh Shetty by the CVC basis which Shri Kasargod Suresh Shetty’s name was recommended for the post of Director – HR, HPCL may please be provided to me under the RTI Act, 2005.

(ii) The inspection of the file under which the vigilance clearance of Shri Kasargod Suresh Shetty may please be permitted to the RTI Applicant under Section 2 (j)

of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(i) Copy of document sought cannot be provided under section 8(1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005 as it is a third party information.

(ii) It may be noted that examination of proposal for 'Vigilance clearance' is sensitive in nature and contains confidential information. Therefore, further details of any such file cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the order of CIC in case No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009 titled K. L. Bablani Vs DG Vigilance, Customs and central excise also refers.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2023. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 31.07.2023

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Normila Jasmine, Deputy Secretary and Shri Sandeep, Assistant Section Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent while denying the information on the ground that it was related to third-party, did not exercise the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, laid down for obtaining consent from the concerned third-party. He further argued that the FAA had not sent him a hardcopy of the FAA’s order through speed post.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed the reply given by the CPIO on 24.04.2023. The CPIO further stated that the appellant had filed an online RTI application as well as an online first appeal. Therefore, both the RTI application and the first appeal had been disposed of through online mode. Additionally, the FAA’s order was duly delivered to the appellant through speed post and the CPIO also produced the dispatch proof for the FAA’s order sent through speed post, during the hearing.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant contended that the CPIO should have exercised the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, before denying the information. However, the provision laid down under Section 11 mandates that the procedure thereof shall be exercised by the CPIO in case he/she intends to disclose the information sought in the RTI application. In this regard, the appellant’s attention is drawn towards the following observations passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.

Jain vs Union of India & Anr [(2013) 14 SCC 794] in its decision dated 16 April, 2013:

“3. On the other hand Section 11 deals with third party